Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosks

Mr. Palmer: asked the Postmaster-General if he will review the principle governing the provision of public telephone kiosks by which such services must be financially remunerative unless the proposed site is within the boundary of a rural district council.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I wish we could come nearer to the principle stated by the hon. Member. Last year there was a heavy loss on public telephone kiosks, in urban as well as in rural districts, amounting in total to £3 million.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present practice is not very sensible, since many urban district councils have isolated rural areas within their boundaries? Should not cases be treated on their merits?

Mr. Thompson: We do, in fact, try to treat cases on their merits, and take into account not only the commercial prospects of kiosks but also the public need for them.

Charges

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General in how many cases the cost of a telephone call was increased to 1s. from 1st January, 1958.

Mr. K. Thompson: Of a weekly total of some 5 million calls previously charged at 6d., or 9d., about 40,000 are now charged at 1s. and the rest at 3d.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Ascot group, two exchange charges have gone from 7½d.

to 1s. and another 10 have gone up from 10d. to 1s.? If that is a fair example, does it not mean that there are exchanges all over the country where the cost of a call has increased? How many calls are affected in that way?

Mr. Thompson: It is clear, from the figures I have given to the House, that the case given by the hon. Gentleman is not a fair example.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend consider another fair example? Is he aware that it is possible to telephone 19 miles from Kidderminster to Birmingham for 3d.? Is not that very satisfactory?

Mr. de Freitas: Does the hon. Member for Kidderminster need to telephone?

Mr. Lipton: Is it not rather a menace to the citizens of Birmingham?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Reception, Forfar

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the bad reception of sound and television in the Forfar district; and what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corporation, to improve it.

Mr. K. Thompson: Reception is not good in this area because of the distance from the transmitters and intervening high ground. Similar difficult areas also exist in other parts of the country, and I cannot yet say what steps will be possible to improve the service.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend, in conjunction with the B.B.C., effect some improvement in this area, because, after all, these people are paying their licences and expect the services?

Mr. Thompson: We realise the difficulties of viewers and listeners in the area to which my hon. Friend refers, and they are very much in the minds of the B.B.C. and the Post Office at the moment.

Experimental Transmitter (Site)

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Postmaster-General where the new low-powered unattended transmitter of television programmes, the development of which he recently announced, is to be sited; and whether he will site it in the Forfar district to improve reception there.

Mr. K. Thompson: The new experimental transmitter is to be given its field trial at Folkestone, where the new Dover station will not be able to give adequate coverage because its power has to be restricted. Further plans for the use of this apparatus must depend on the results of the trial, and on the rate at which the British Broadcasting Corporation can undertake further commitments of this kind.

Sir J. Duncan: As there is a possibility that this new invention may be the answer to Forfar's problem, will my hon. Friend place the second experimental transmitter in the region of Forfar?

Mr. Thompson: I think we had better wait to see the result of the first experimental transmitter, and then settle down to the very difficult problem of deciding where priority should be given as between the claims of a great many similar areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Letters, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that his discontinuance of certain long accustomed postal deliveries in the City of Aberdeen has been followed by an intimation to the citizens that they can receive letters, so not delivered, by calling for them at Crown Street Post Office on payment of a 6d. fee on each letter in addition to the pre-paid postage on each letter, and that there is widespread discontent at this new procedure; if he will immediately discontinue it; and if he will state the statutory authority under which he seeks to impose it.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am sorry I cannot exempt the citizens of Aberdeen from payment of the standard fee of 6d. which is made each time a person calls for letters—but not, as the hon. and learned Member supposes, for each letter collected. The authorities for the fee are the Post Office Act, 1953, and the Inland Post Warrants.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this new practice is retrogressive, invidious and damaging to trade, industry and commerce, and that it will ultimately prove uneconomic to the Post Office itself? Will he look into the matter with a view to withdrawing his exercise of

these rather reactionary statutory powers, to which he has just referred?

Mr. Thompson: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that anything the Post Office does is damaging to business. This is not a new practice. The fee has recently been increased, but it has always been the practice to charge a fee for all letters separated and handled in this way.

Tape Recorders

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General how many tape recorders were purchased by his Department during the past year.

Mr. K. Thompson: Most tape recorders for the Post Office, like other office machines, are purchased by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Eight recorders were supplied during 1957. In addition, we purchased three tape recorders for general research purposes.

Mr. Lipton: How many tape recorders are now in use in the London region? Can the Minister give an assurance that none of them is required for telephone-tapping purposes?

Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman reframed that question it would be very acceptable on the Order Paper.

Sub-Postmasters (Pay)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General when he rejected the pay claim submitted by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters; and when he required them to exhibit a notice that increased postal charges were partly due to pay claims.

Mr. K. Thompson: The sub-postmasters' claim was rejected in October. The notice about increased postal charges was exhibited from 16th September to 30th November.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmaster-General himself said last March—I quote his exact words—
sub-postmasters work damned hard for very little".
Is he also aware that six months later the right hon. Gentleman said:
We see no justification for any increase".


In those circumstances, is it not unfair and misleading to try to give the impression that sub-postmasters are partly responsible for the increased postal charges?

Mr. Thompson: I should be very happy to supply the hon. Gentleman with the full context of the remarks of my right hon. Friend to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House. I should inform the House and the hon. Gentleman that sub-postmasters had two increases in salary during 1957, and that when we framed our proposals for increased postal charges we took into account those increases and also the prospect that the sub-postmasters' claim would not be met.

Service, Madeley

Mr. Swingler: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the dissatisfaction with the postal service in the village of Madeley; and if he will take steps to improve it.

Mr. K. Thompson: As I have explained in correspondence to the hon. Member, the recent change in the postal arrangements at Madeley was designed to provide a better service. We are doing all we can to make sure that there are no more delays of the kind the hon. Member has told us about. A new posting box with a larger aperture has now been put up at the corner of Furness Lane and the main road.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the changes made so far have produced deterioration instead of improvement, and that very shortly he will receive a communication from the parish council of Madeley on this subject? Would he therefore make further inquiries whether further changes should be made that will make improvement?

Mr. Thompson: Our intention in making the evening collection at 5.30 instead of 6.40 was to enable the mail posted in the area to catch an earlier and more reliable connection to all parts of the country. In that respect it was an improvement in the service, but if the hon. Gentleman or the council make representations to us we will, of course, consider them very carefully.

Stamps (New Issues)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General what special postage stamps he proposes to issue in 1958 and 1959.

Mr. K. Thompson: Present plans for 1958 include special 3d., 6d. and 1s. 3d. stamps to mark the British Empire and Commonwealth Games. In addition, there is to be a new 4½d. stamp in the permanent series, new 3d., 6d. and 1s. 3d. stamps for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales; and a new 3d. stamp for Jersey, for Guernsey and for the Isle of Man. It is too early to say whether any special stamps will be issued in 1959.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that the Minister has not made up his mind about 1959, will he undertake to look again at the request made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that a special commemorative stamp shall be printed to celebrate the bicentenary next year of Robert Burns? Is he aware that he has already departed from precedent by allowing a stamp to be issued for the British Empire Games and that Scots people think that Burns is as important as the British Empire Games? If he cannot do this, will the Minister have the imagination to arrange for bulk purchase of stamps from the Soviet Union and for them to be sold at British post offices?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman and the House know that we have given very careful consideration to the problem of the Burns stamp. I endeavoured to state the Post Office reasons for the decision as clearly and as sympathetically as I could to hon. Members who came to see me, among whom was the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Gower: Will the commemoration stamp for the British Empire Games indicate clearly that the venue is in Wales, namely, Cardiff?

Mr. Thompson: Welsh Members and the citizens of Wales generally will not, I think, have any cause of complaint about the appearance of the new stamp when it is available.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: The reply of the hon. Gentleman to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) indicates that


the Post Office is issuing quite a number of new stamps of various denominations. Does not that indicate that there has been a departure from the normal principle, which was very conservative in the past? In view of that departure, will the Minister look again at the Question of my hon. Friend, in view of the fact that another country is issuing a commemorative stamp for the Burns bicentenary?

Mr. Thompson: I would not have your approval, Mr. Speaker, if I canvassed all the arguments of this case, but I should tell the House that we are aware of what other countries are doing. It gives us no reason to think that we must follow them. For example, it is not only Robert Burns that Russia is commemorating with a special stamp. There are other figures on their stamps which might not meet with such wide acceptance or approval from hon. Members. I should also tell the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) that we have not departed from the practice followed by the Post Office for more than 100 years of not issuing stamps to commemorate individuals.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Education Branch

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers serving in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force who are now wing commanders or above, will reach retirement age during the next ten years; and how many of them will be in the category permitted to serve until reaching the age of sixty.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): Thirty-six of these officers are due to retire within the next ten years, including thirty-four who will have reached the age of sixty.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many squadron leaders now serving in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force are forty-three years of age or older.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Sixty-four, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the figures given to me now and on previous occasions make it clear that very few squadron leaders, if

any, over the age of forty-three have any hope of promotion? Is he aware of the very keen sense of injustice throughout the Education Branch and that it may have a disastrous effect on recruiting?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that my hon. Friend is misinformed. Up to date, the rate of promotion for squadron leaders and wing commanders has been reasonably satisfactory. We are examining the position because we realise that in the future, with the new shape of the Royal Air Force and its smaller numbers, there may be difficulties in this career. We are examining the matter most closely.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air if the committee, set up in his Department under the Chairmanship of the Director-General of Manning to consider the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force, and which in 1956 expected to consider the problem of the promotion to wing commander in isolation and in advance of the general study of the branch, has now completed its deliberations; and if he will make a statement about the promotion prospects of squadron leaders in the Education Branch.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Our study of the measures necessary to preserve a satisfactory rate of promotion beyond squadron leader in this branch has been complicated and delayed by the need to review the requirement in relation to the new size and shape of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend recall that as long ago as August, 1956, my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), when Secretary of State for Air, told me that he hoped that the problem of promotion to wing commander could be considered in isolation and in advance of the general study? Can he say the reason for the very long delay? The position is extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The delay has been brought about by the entirely new defence policy, the abolition of National Service and the entirely new size and shape of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. P. Morris: Will the Under-Secretary of State expedite clarification of this matter in view of the very ambiguous position of many young officers? Having


volunteered to devote the whole of their lives to this public service, many now suffer from frustration. If anything can be done to clarify the position quickly the action would be appreciated.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes. It is appreciated that there is uncertainty. My right hon. Friend is pushing on with the investigation. I am sorry that it has been delayed by the change in size of the Royal Air Force.

Pilots (Gratuities)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement regarding the signal sent to the Royal Air Force units in May, 1957, informing pilots that they could transfer to the Reserve prematurely; and what were the terms upon which these volunteers received their gratuities as compared with those pilots who have been compulsorily declared redundant following the White Paper of September, 1957.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The signal to which the hon. Member refers was sent on 20th March, 1957, after we had been asked if we could help to relieve the shortage of civil pilots. It invited pilots within three years of the end of their current engagements to apply for employment with the British Overseas Airways Corporation or British European Airways, and offered those who were accepted premature release under the normal rules for voluntary retirements. These rules provide for the award of gratuity proportionate to the officer's service, with a deduction of 25 per cent.
The special terms given to officers whose careers are compulsorily cut short because of the run-down of the forces are set out in Command 231 published on 24th July, 1957—four months after the signal to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Johnson: As an ex-pilot, does not the Minister think that he has given these fellows a bad deal? Is it not a fact that because they volunteered to help the Minister in his difficulty over manpower they now find that if they had stayed on an extra month or two and been sacked instead of heeding his request they would have got more money than by volunteering? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a bit harsh?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will

agree that when there is a change in conditions one has to set a line. There are always a number of people who fall the wrong side of the line and who feel a grievance. We cannot change that situation and make restrospective compensation payable to people who have accepted another form of exit under previous arrangements.

Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister say why the White Paper was published so late and not in July? It is said in the Service that it could have been published then. People knew the conditions. The White Paper was ready then, but was held back so that more people could volunteer and help the Ministry out of its difficulties.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that question ought to be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence who published the White Paper and not to myself.

Hydrogen Bombs

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many flights over Great Britain have been made by Royal Air Force aeroplanes carrying hydrogen bombs; when such flights commenced; and to what extent they are still continuing.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. Member to the information given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to a supplementary question from the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 5th December. It would not be in the public interest to give more detailed information.

Mr. Swingler: Why should not the House of Commons know, as these things have been advertised very widely by the Prime Minister himself, what, in fact, is happening? Is this not a lunatic policy? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is serious dispute among scientists about the possibility of a disastrous accident occurring if one of these planes crashed, and, therefore, is it not time that action was taken to stop this panic?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: In the interests of security, I will not ask the hon. Gentleman for details, but can he answer the


simple question—are Royal Air Force aeroplanes carrying hydrogen bombs, atom bombs or any kind of bombs during training flights over this country?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on this matter. My right hon. Friend chose his words most carefully and I do not think that it would be in the public interest to tell our potential enemies just when or where we are carrying these bombs.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I am not asking for details of where or when, but merely whether, in fact, our aircraft carry bombs during training flights over this country?

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Under-Secretary at least agree to report to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air the terms of my right hon. Friend's question, which is a simple question and does not ask for the full details or anything like that? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to do that?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Of course, I will report to my right hon. Friend the supplementary question asked. My right hon. Friend will study the points made most carefully and he will be answering Questions first next week.

Mr. Shinwell: This is a very important matter, and as I see no need for secrecy, at any rate on the general issue, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman can say whether the Soviet Union is unaware of the fact that Royal Air Force aircraft are carrying bombs during training flights over this country?

Princess Flying Boats

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration has been given to the use by the Royal Air Force of the Princess flying boats for air trooping.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The proposal to use the three Princess flying boats, for air trooping has been fully considered in the past, and we concluded on both economic and operational grounds that we should not be justified in completing them for use in this rôle. With the run-down of our overseas forces and the consequent contraction of routine air trooping, the case against the proposal is now more cogent than ever.

Mr. P. Williams: Can my hon. Friend give any indication as to the use to which these Princess flying boats are to be put? Is there any possibility of selling them or using them for another purpose?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question on the Order Paper, in which case it might not be put down to my right hon. Friend.

Senior Officers (Retirement)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the rank of air commodore and above are due for retirement during the present year.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Thirty-four, Sir.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my hon. Friend say how many air commodores have been declared redundant and how the figure compares with officers of more senior rank? Will he say what is being done to get these men satisfactory jobs in civilian life?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is a total of 140 air commodores in the Royal Air Force of whom 17, that is, 12 per cent., have been declared redundant. This number compares with the figure of 4 per cent. of other officers in the Royal Air Force. With reference to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, it has been announced in the House on several occasions that machinery has been set up on an inter-Service basis to deal with the resettlement of officers, and it is progressing very satisfactorily at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any idea what Soviet reaction is likely to be when the Russians hear that so many of these air commodores are regarded as redundant?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I have no Ministerial responsibility for Soviet reaction.

Sir P. Agnew: May I ask my hon. Friend whether his reply means that when the 34 are retired only 17 group captains will be promoted to air commodores to replace them?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a complicated question. I should prefer to see it on the Order Paper and have due notice of it rather than give a snap answer.

Components and Spare Parts

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what reduction in holdings of components such as aero engines and of spare parts has been achieved by the increased use of rapid carriage to overseas units by air instead of by surface transport.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The level of stocks overseas is largely determined by strategic requirements. We do, however, make considerable use of air transport for stores which are required urgently, which are scarce or which are highly perishable.

Mr. de Freitas: Cannot the Under-Secretary give us any idea of the reduction in these holdings brought about by the increased use of air transport? In particular, is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous financial savings reported in the United States Air Force by its use of electronic recording of stocks coupled with rapid air transport of these valuable components?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is that there are so many different factors coming into play with the change in the bases, size and disposition of our forces that it is not possible to provide an exact measurement of the change in our problems of supply. In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I would say that we are well aware of the great progress in organisation which has taken place in the United States in the supply of its armed forces. In fact, we have several study groups examining electronic data processing and other modern methods of recording and provisioning so that we can bring our supply arrangements fully up to date.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Double White Line Marking

Mr. Sharples: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the operation of the double white line experiment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Following my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of the decision to adopt for general

use the system evolved in this experiment, we are now working on the problem of extending the markings as quickly as practicable through the country. We hope to arrange for a considerable extension of this marking to be laid down in the near future.

Mr. Sharples: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the contribution that this scheme made to road safety during the Christmas holiday period, and, further, any idea of the order of priority under which this extension will take place?

Mr. Nugent: I would not like to give figures, although I have them, of what improvement has taken place on the two roads where this experiment has been in operation, but the initial implication is that it has improved road safety by preventing dangerous overtaking. I can give my hon. Friend no precise indication of the priority for laying down the white lines, but we hope to see a good deal done this year.

Traffic Lights

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that, when traffic is light at night in many continental towns, traffic signals are switched to a flashing amber light; and what experiments have been carried out in Great Britain with a view to introducing a flashing red light at night which would avoid confusion with Belisha beacons.

Mr. Nugent: Experiments carried out some years ago did not show that flashing red lights had any advantage over vehicle-actuated traffic lights, which are widely used in this country.

Mr. Russell: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the flashing amber light is in great use on the Continent, and therefore, presumably, saves a good deal of time in vehicles not having to pull up and come to a dead stop, and a great deal of wear and tear? Would not my hon. Friend reconsider the matter in view of the fact that this system is so widely used abroad?

Mr. Nugent: We have considered it very carefully. Most of the traffic lights used abroad are timed for operation as opposed to the vehicle-actuated lights in


this country. I think that the balance of advantage is to be had by sticking to our present system.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister be cautious before he introduces any more flashing light apparatus on the roads?

A.1 Road, Baldock

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the result of moving the 30-miles-per-hour speed-limit sign at the southern approach to Baldock, on A.1, about 500 yards further south; and what tests have been carried out to discover to what extent it is being observed.

Mr. Nugent: I am informed by the police that the speed limit automatically imposed on this length by the installation of street lighting last February has had little or no effect on the speed of vehicles, in spite of numerous prosecutions. We are considering whether it ought to be retained.

Hyde Park Corner and Cromwell Road Extension

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decisions he has reached on the construction of a four-lane instead of the proposed two-lane underpass at Hyde Park Corner and on the flyover on the Cromwell Road Extension at Hammersmith.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I have decided, and the London County Council has agreed, that there must be no risk of under-insuring against future traffic growth at Hyde Park Corner. I therefore propose at the appropriate moment to seek to amend the Bill so that a four-lane underpass can be included at the outset at this point.
As I said in answer to a Question on 20th December, I hope to make a grant of 75 per cent. in the next financial year towards the construction of the flyover at Hammersmith as I have always taken the view that this flyover was necessary to the solution of the traffic problem here.

Mr. Ernest Davies: While congratulating the Minister on having second thoughts on this matter, and commending him for accepting the advice which was

given to him from both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate, may I ask if it is not a fact that in the original proposals of the L.C.C. there was provision for a four-lane tunnel? Why did the Minister in those circumstances, in spite of the L.C.C. recommendations, decide not to authorise it at an earlier stage?

Mr. Watkinson: Of course. I am always willing to defer to the collective good sense of this House when it is displayed as clearly as it was when we discussed the problem. As to the other point made by the hon. Member, of course the scheme was always designed for a four-lane underpass, but all the experts took the view—the extreme view—that no underpass was necessary at all. It was not an easy decision, but I think that on the whole it is always right, in London at any rate, to over-insure against traffic growth rather than to under-insure.

Mr. Ernest Davies: With regard to the Hammersmith' flyover, can the Minister state what extra work has been done which would not have been necessary had the flyover been decided upon in the first place, and what has been the extra cost and delay involved?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member—I do not think I will disappoint him. No extra expense has been incurred, because we always saw that the site was fitted for a flyover. Therefore, no additional expense was incurred.

Dogs

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many local authorities have made an Order under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, designating a road upon which dogs are not permitted unless on a lead.

Mr. Nugent: Up to 31st December last, 84 Orders have been submitted for confirmation; of these we have confirmed or agreed to confirm 41 and rejected seven. The remainder are under consideration. Fourteen orders are actually in operation.

Mr. Champion: Is the Minister aware that if the law of averages is anything to go by, before the end of this year 23 people will be killed, 600 seriously injured and some 2,000 slightly injured


as a result of accidents on the roads caused by dogs? Will he not stimulate the local authorities to propose to him many more Orders than have been proposed to date?

Mr. Nugent: I think it is essentially a matter for local authorities to decide. The enforcement will be difficult, to say the least of it, and co-operation from all concerned will be needed to make orders effective. I think that the present arrangement is right.

Halt Signs

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what report he has received from the Road Research Laboratory on the value, in reducing the accident rate, of the practice of painting "Halt" on the road surface adjacent to halt signs.

Mr. Nugent: We have not yet received the final report from the Road Research Laboratory on this subject.

Mr. Collins: Can the Minister say when he expects to receive this report? Would he urge the matter forward, because it is one of some importance?

Mr. Nugent: I accept that it is important, but we feel that we should have a full-scale experiment extending over about 100 sites before we finally reach a conclusion. I know that the hon. Member has had a satisfactory experience with this in his own locality, but we feel that we should have a full-scale experiment before reaching a final decision.

Improvement Scheme, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to state when the trunk road improvement scheme from London Road to Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be carried out.

Mr. Nugent: I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on 18th December, 1957.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Member try to speed this up? Is he aware that many important projects affecting housing and shopping in the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme are held up until a decision

or action is taken on this road improvement? Could he therefore give the council a date as soon as possible?

Mr. Nugent: I will. The main reason for the hold-up has been the necessity to co-ordinate the road with the redevelopment of the area, but I will certainly do all that is possible to expedite a decision.

Vehicle Lights and Traffic Signals

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the gradual increase in the number of flashing lights on vehicles, Belisha beacons, and traffic signals; if he is satisfied that this increase is not, on balance, adding to the difficulties of drivers, especially during the winter months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: I do not believe that flashing direction indicators, beacons at pedestrian crossings or traffic signals add to drivers' difficulties. On the contrary, properly used and under proper control they are valuable aids to safety on our roads. We hope to circulate to interested organisations in the near future detailed proposals for the regulation of flashing indicators on motor vehicles.

Sir F. Medlicott: Does not my hon. Friend realise that there must be a saturation point in a matter of this nature? Will he particularly have a watch kept on the flashing lights on vehicles, which are tending to become too big and too bright and which are tending to be kept on for unnecessarily long periods?

Mr. Nugent: The guidance which we shall send out shortly, preparatory to making regulations, will take account of those factors.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Member aware that reflecting advertisements at dangerous corners, in conjunction with these flashing lights, are apt to divert drivers' attention from corners at very difficult moments?

Mr. Nugent: I agree that they can be a danger and I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

Accidents

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many people have been killed, how many


seriously and how many slightly injured, on the roads in Great Britain since these statistics were first kept.

Mr. Nugent: From 1926 to the end of 1957, 195,767 persons were killed and 5,568,799 were injured on the roads of Great Britain. The total of injuries does not include casualties in the years 1939 to 1941. The distinction between serious and slight injuries was not made regularly until 1942. From 1942 to the end of 1957, 85,116 persons were killed, 733,821 seriously injured and 2,279,713 were slightly injured.

Sir F. Medlicott: Would the Minister take some further opportunity of making known these tragic figures, as the impact of these large numbers might, perhaps, do more good even than the routine repetition of the annual totals?

Mr. Nugent: I thank my hon. Friend for calling attention to them. It is continually my responsibility to bring these very serious losses to the attention of the community and, indeed, to do all in my power to make the public generally aware of the rudimentary rules of road safety.

Mr. Isaacs: Can the Minister say if there are any records showing what percentage of accidents arise after the closing time of the public houses at night?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, the Annual Report that we publish shows the time of the various accidents, and it is then up to individuals to make their own deductions.

Ludgate Circus

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when, approximately, it is proposed to reconstruct and enlarge Ludgate Circus; and why Messrs. Cope's are being permitted to build on part of the proposed new Circus.

Mr. Nugent: I cannot say when Ludgate Circus will be reconstructed, but Messrs. Cope's new building has been planned to fit in with the final layout.

New Trunk Roads (Reflectors)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state his policy about the installation of catseyes on the new trunk roads; and

what is the cost per mile of their installation.

Mr. Watkinson: I shall continue to use catseye reflectors for new trunk roads in the same way as before. Reports to the contrary in the Press are based on a misunderstanding. The cost per mile varies with road conditions, but the average is about £180 a mile.

Birmingham Road, Meriden—Allesley

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reply he has sent to the Coventry District Committee of the Transport and General Workers Union following their representations for emergency safety measures on the Birmingham road between Meriden and Allesley.

Mr. Nugent: I am investigating this matter, and hope to send a reply very shortly. I will send a copy of this letter to the hon. Member.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that, even without my seeing that reply, it is clear that this has dragged on for some considerable time, and that if on every occasion it is brought forward by this union the answer is to be that a reply will be sent some time, we are likely to have many more accidents before that reply arrives?

Mr. Nugent: The road work is really very well advanced there, and I think that the hon. Lady will be quite satisfied when she hears the detailed reply.

RAILWAYS

Passenger Trains (Untreated Sewage Discharge)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that long-distance passenger coaches shall be so constructed that untreated sewage shall be no longer discharged on the permanent way.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. This question was recently considered by an expert committee set up by the British Transport Commission. It confirmed the view taken by the European and American railway administrations whom it consulted, that there is no practical alternative to the


present method of disposal. The Committee recommended, however, certain modifications in existing equipment which are being considered.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that it has been shown experimentally that fluids discharged from railway coaches are not only desposited between the lines but spread to the side of the lines as well? Will not he agree that it is a filthy scheme to permit untreated sewage to be deposited on railway tracks both in town and country, and, at any rate in connection with construction of new rolling stock, will he consider some better method?

Mr. Nugent: All the alternatives have been very carefully considered both here and elsewhere and there seems to be no practicable alternative to the present method. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has been able to give certain assurances that this is not a danger to health and I think we must leave it there.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister please not accept that as the last word? Surely further experiments should be made because, not only is sewage deposited on the track but, as indicated by my hon. Friend, it also goes on to the couplings and other things which have to be handled by the men concerned? This has been the subject of much discussion between the trade unions and the B.T.C. Will the Minister refuse to accept that nothing can be done but urge further experiment with a view to ending this awful nuisance?

Mr. Nugent: I agree that if some better alternative could be found it would be most desirable. We certainly will urge the Commission to continue to study possible alternatives, including the recommendations of the Committee.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain eminent scientists have said that untreated sewage may well be a source of poliomyelitis? If so, can he lightly dismiss this question?

Mr. Nugent: I did not dismiss it, but I did say that the Minister of Health had given the House an assurance on 29th October that this did not constitute a danger of infection by poliomyelitis. We certainly accept that it would be desirable to find some alternative, and if we can we will.

Knightsbridge Underground Station (Incidents)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many prosecutions are pending arising out of the incidents involving approximately 200 young men and women at Knightsbridge Underground station on Sunday, 8th December.

Mr. Watkinson: This is a matter for the London Transport Executive whose police cover these premises. I am, however, informed that they do not consider there are grounds for prosecution.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is it not rather remarkable that when more than 200 "debs and debs' delights" act like hooligans, inconvenience passengers, play hide-and-seek in coaches and run up and down escalators, no offence is committed? If any working-class lad did that, the whole weight of the police force would be brought against him. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the indifference of the British Transport Commission in this case makes many people believe that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that perhaps the hon. Member is a little muddled in his description of the classes, because I consider that in this country today every single one of us belongs to the working class.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Should not these young people consider themselves lucky that they were not Welsh and did not go to Twickenham?

Transport Commission Members (Salaries)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the intentions of the Government with regard to making available to the British Transport Commission additional finance to meet the additional salaries recently awarded to both full-time and part-time members of the Commission.

Mr. Watkinson: No additional finance will be provided by the Government.

Mr. Jones: Are we, therefore, to assume that the doubling of the salaries of the part-time members of the Commission means that the additional cost is to be met by the Commission, whereas the statement of the ex-Chancellor of


the Exchequer on 29th October is to apply to the wages grades on the railways?

Mr. Watkinson: Again, I think the hon. Member is a little muddled. These gentlemen who give their time in part-time service to the Commission were, as I think the hon. Member would agree, very much underpaid. They are now being paid more and that fits in entirely with Government policy which says that when pay increases are made, they must be swallowed within the organisation which gives them.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it proper for a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to accuse two hon. Members of being muddled? Is it not also improper to indulge in repetition?

Mr. Speaker: Whether the number of hon. Members alleged to be muddled is one or two cannot make any difference. I do not think it is out of order. Choice of language is a matter for hon. Members themselves so long as they keep within the rules of order.

Mr. Jones: I do not mind the right hon. Member telling me I am muddled, but the fact is that the part-time members of the British Transport Commission have had their emoluments doubled. What does the Minister propose to do about making more money available so that the ordinary wage earners on the railways can have some commensurate increase?

Area Boards (Salaries)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the information contained in Command Paper No. 332, he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission to make available to hon. Members information showing the salaries and allowances paid to the chairman and members of the several regional railway boards.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Jones: Why does the right hon. Gentleman insist upon keeping these members of the railway boards wrapped up in the cotton wool of secrecy when

the Government themselves have revealed to everybody who cares to purchase a copy of Cmd. 332 the salaries paid to part-time members of the electricity boards, the gas boards, the Atomic Energy Authority and the British Transport Commission? Why does not he provide the same facilities in order that we can see whether the members of the railway boards are paid and whether they have had their salaries doubled, as have the members of the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Watkinson: The House decided—and it was a decision of the House—that the area boards were to be appointed by the Chairman of the British Transport Commission. They are not my appointments. In my view, therefore, it would be quite inappropriate for me to deal with their salaries.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that the area boards are very important organisaions and have a locus not entirely dissimilar from that of some of the regional boards in other nationalised industries, will the Minister tell us by what arrangement or device hon. Members who wish to do so can find out what salaries are paid to the chairmen and vice-chairmen? Can they put a Question to the Minister? If not, how can this information be made available to hon. Members who want to know?

Mr. Watkinson: As I said, the decision was a decision of the House and it was that these boards should be appointed by the Commission and not by me. In the Commission's current annual accounts, page 23 of volume II, the total amount paid to the members of the area boards is clearly set down as £19,803. That is as far as I think it proper to go.

Mr. Jones: On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's attitude on this Question, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Pensions

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will raise the pensions of British Railways superannuitants because of the rise in the cost of living since the last adjustment was made.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I must leave it to the British Transport Commission to decide the extent to which its circumstances permit it to give supplements to railway pensioners.

Dr. King: While I appreciate the good work which the Minister did personally in April, 1956, in getting the industry to raise the pensions of these men, may I ask him to bear in mind that the few shillings which the lowest-paid super-annuitants received in those clays as an increase hardly matched the then rise in the cost of living, that two years of inflation have followed and that some of these veteran servants of British Railways are enduring hardship?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with that. I certainly felt that it was right to press the Commission, as I did, to do the utmost that it could, but when in its judgment the Commission tells me, as it has, that it has gone to the limit for the moment, I must accept its view.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the Minister stimulated the British Transport Commission on the previous occasion, for which all railway super-annuitants are extremely grateful, will he bear in mind that a little more stimulus and a little more saving on the part of the Commission could help these people? Is he not aware that a great many of these superannuitants receive a disgracefully small amount, that the railwaymen did a magnificent job during the war and that something further ought to be done to help them?

Mr. Watkinson: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I must rest on the firm position—I do not want the House to misunderstand it—that the final judgment here is what the Commission honestly thinks it can afford.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what percentage increase has been made in the pensions of British Railways super-annuitants since 1947.

Mr. Watkinson: The British Transport Commission's schemes of pension supplements are not based on percentages. I am sending the hon. Member copies of the details of the schemes as published by the Commission.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the details, when he sends them, will show

that these superannuitants have never had their pensions increased at anything like the same rate as State and local government servants, whose pensions are covered by the various Pensions (Increase) Acts? Will he bear in mind that even in the improvement which he made in April, 1956, to which I referred in my earlier supplementary question, quite a number of these superannuitants received no increase in their pensions at all? Will he give the matter sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Watkinson: I know that it is very complicated and I know, too, that there are cases of great difficulty. I will draw to the Commission's attention what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, but I must rest on my previous Answer that this is the Commission's decision.

Lewes—East Grinstead Branch Line

Colonel Beamish: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what date he received the report of the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee on the proposal of the Transport Commission to close the Lewes—East Grinstead branch railway line; whether he is aware of the local anxiety that his decision should be announced as soon as possible; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: I received the report on 10th January, and am arranging for it to be published as soon as possible.

SHIPPING

Radar Equipment

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is taking to ensure that all British registered vessels of over 4,000 tons shall be equipped with radar.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): My Department has given much active help in the development of radar for merchant ships and my right hon. Friend will continue to encourage shipowners to make use of this equipment. He does not think, however, that he would be justified at this stage in making its carriage compulsory.

Oil in Navigable Waters Act

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many prosecutions were brought for contravention of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act during 1957; and with what results.

Mr. Neave: Full details are not yet to hand. The harbour authorities and others concerned have been asked to supply this information for inclusion in the Annual Report which my right hon. Friend is required to lay before Parliament. I will also send this information to my hon. Friend.

Flags of Convenience

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consult with the Chamber of Shipping as to the possibilities of implementing the recent suggestions by its President for dealing with the problem of flags of convenience by the formation by those nations who suffer from the competition of these bogus flags of a club which would not allow ships built or owned in their countries to be registered in or sold to any country outside the the club.

Mr. Watkinson: As I understand it, the suggetion of the President of the Chamber of Shipping was put forward on a purely personal basis. It would affect shipbuilders as well as shipowners. I am advised that a committee of the shipowners' organisations is reviewing the whole question, and I expect to have discussions with them as soon as they are ready.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that this flag of convenience business is becoming a real scandal? When will the time come when the nations with real shipping interests instead of merely bogus ones decline their port facilities to these bogus flags?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that that was something of the substance of the proposals put forward, which are being examined.

TRANSPORT

Public Service Vehicle Drivers (Licences)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to the recent

case where a man with three convictions in four years for careless driving was given a licence to drive a bus; and if, in the interests of road safety, he will overhaul and tighten up his Regulations governing the issue of public service vehicle licences.

Mr. Nugent: I am aware of this case. The traffic commissioners concerned inform me that, when granting this licence, they knew of the man's convictions, but took account of the fact that he had had a clean record for some time, and warned him as to his future conduct. In view of his latest conviction the licence has been revoked. In general, the system for granting public service vehicle drivers' licences works well, and I do not think that there are grounds for altering it.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will the Minister continue to do all he can to impress on those under his jurisdiction that, as he has just indicated in reply to Question No. 39, driving is a matter of life and death, and that everything should be done to keep careless drivers off the road?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir.

Cars (Compulsory Inspection)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further discussions have taken place about the initiation of the scheme for the compulsory inspection of cars, and with whom; whether any decisions have now been arrived at; and how and when the scheme will be operated.

Mr. Watkinson: Further discussions have taken place with the motoring organisations and with bodies representing motor traders who will be eligible for appointment as authorised examiners. The discussions with these and all other interested parties should be concluded within the next few weeks, and I expect to be in a position before Easter to inform the House of my general proposals for bringing the scheme into effect.

CIVIL AVIATION

Brindisi—Athens Air Route

Mr. N. Nicolson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make representations to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that


the present air route recommended to civil aircraft flying between Brindisi and Athens passes too close to the Albanian frontier, and that the route should be realigned to pass further south; and whether he will recommend to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that all international air route maps shall mark Albania as a territory over which it is prohibited to fly.

Mr. Watkinson: I am looking into this question. I will have the matter raised at an I.C.A.O. regional meeting which is to take place later this month, but any change in the alignment of the route is likely to present technical difficulties.

Mr. Nicolson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the recent accident involving a British Skymaster which was forced down in Albania might not have had such, a happy conclusion if it had involved, say, a British aircraft coming back from Cyprus with uniformed troops on board? Would not he agree that it would be a change for the better for everybody concerned if the air route could be taken further away from the frontier, and pilots instructed not to fly anywhere near Albania?

Mr. Watkinson: As I know my hon. Friend knows, all these things have to be done by international agreement, and I have said that I will have it looked at.

Medium-Range Jet Airliner

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to make a statement upon the negotiations, between British European Airways and the aircraft manufacturers, regarding the future requirements of British European Airways for high-speed medium-range jet airliners.

Mr. Watkinson: I have this week discussed with the Chairman of B.E.A. the results of his most recent talks with aircraft manufacturers. Some progress has been made. Further discussions are to take place, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Hunter: Will the Minister endeavour to speed up these negotiations, because this delay must cause concern to the B.E.A.? Will he also bear in mind that redundancy has now taken place amongst employees in the aircraft industry?

Mr. Watkinson: I am most anxious to speed them up but, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows, it is B.E.A. that is, at the moment, carrying on the talks.

AIRCRAFT (HYDROGEN BOMBS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister what action is being taken to prevent the ingestion of plutonium over neighbouring areas in the event of an aeroplane crashing on United Kingdom territory when carrying a hydrogen bomb.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The Prime Minister has already said that the risk of the ingestion of plutonium, if indeed such a risk exists at all, is very small. In these circumstances no special action is considered necessary.

Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement by a number of distinguished scientists in the New Scientist of 2nd January, that whilst the plutonium need not explode it could cause heat and scatter over considerable areas; that the evacuation of all cattle would be necessary there; that the vegetable matter would be destroyed; and that the radioactivity would persist for a long period? In view of this, would he ask for further consideration of this danger?

Mr. Butler: Certainly; we always have this sort of matter under the closest attention. I understand that the danger arises, in fact, if the nuclear material catches fire, but I then understand that the danger is more from inhalation than from ingestion. I have further examined the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I cannot find that the information there is in advance of the information in our possession.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether any Royal Air Force aeroplanes carrying hydrogen bombs are conducting training flights over United Kingdom territory?

Mr. Butler: I understand that this matter was raised earlier in Question Time today, and I should like notice before giving a considered reply on this subject.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the Minister say whether the information he has just given to the House is that given by the appropriate committee of the Medical Research Council?

Mr. Butler: It is part of the general information at the disposal of the Government. I could not give an exact Answer to the right hon. Lady's question, but I will certainly inform her on making myself acquainted with it.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that special training is given at least to Royal Air Force and civilian first-aid organisations in those areas over which these aircraft regularly fly?

Mr. Butler: That would be a very wide answer to give without being able to ascertain the facts. I will obtain the facts and give them to the hon. Gentleman.

LORD PRIVY SEAL (SPEECH)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal at Felstead on 7th January, on the financial and economic situation, represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Deputy Prime Minister say whether he is here today in his capacity as Mr. Hyde or Dr. Jekyll? Does he recollect that, according to the Daily Express, in this speech the Lord Privy Seal pounded the table and talked about a split in the Tory Party following the resignation of three Ministers and that, on the same day, the Prime Minister referred to them as "little local differences". Which version are we to accept?

Mr. Butler: In my case, as I was in my own locality—that is, my constituency—I was handling the matter in, I

thought, a most statesmanlike manner, trying to explain to my constituents the many-sidedness of truth.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Procedure of Parliament

Mr. Oram: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 31st January, I shall call attention to the procedure of Parliament and, in particular, to the timetable and the precedence given to Privy Councillors, and move a Resolution.

Crimes of Violence

Sir T. Moore: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 31st January, I shall call attention to the increase in crimes of violence and murder, and move a Resolution.

Juvenile Crime and Delinquency

Mr. Godman Irvine: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 31st January, I shall call attention to juvenile crime and delinquency in England and Wales, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE

Bill to amend the law with respect to the Imperial Institute, presented by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd; supported by Mr. Molson, Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Alport, and Mr. Profumo; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Opencast Coal [Money] and on the Motion relating to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

LITTER

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the abatement of litter.
The Bill which I seek to introduce is as simple as that. Parliament has recently passed into law an Act providing for clean air, and the opinion of many local authorities and other bodies is that the time has come for Parliament to pass an Act designed to provide for a clean-up of our towns and countryside. That is the sole aim of the Bill.
Litter has now become a serious menace to both life and limb. The number of accidents caused to humans and to animals by broken bottles and rusty tins is immense—particularly is this so on our beaches and seashores. Moreover, as we all know, litter is disfiguring all our highways and byways and, in fact, almost every nook and cranny of our country. It causes, too, very great expense. Local authorities are having to spend millions of pounds of public money to provide for its collection and disposal.
Britain, almost alone among the countries of the world, does not condemn litter by Statute. It is true that we have some byelaws dealing with this menace, but those byelaws apply only in certain areas, and experience has shown, I think, that they are vague and uncertain in their effect and are too often disregarded.
I can well understand that there may be some people who will suggest that a Bill of this kind must inevitably be vexatious, lead to unnecessary officiousness, and to a certain extent destroy liberty and freedom. I would answer that it is the "litter bug" himself who is destroying freedom because, by his selfishness, he is ensuring that privileges are taken away and that many beauty spots are closed to the public.
That is why the Bill I seek to introduce is supported by societies such as the Rights of Way Society, the Ramblers' Association, the Youth Hostels Association, and by nearly every one of the many public bodies which are interested in protecting the amenities of the country. They are all pressing for legislation on the lines of the proposed Bill. If hon. Members have the opportunity to see it, they will

not only find that the Bill is short and simple, but they will see that care has been taken in framing it in order to prevent its being unnecessarily vexatious.
The Bill will, I believe, safeguard from prosecution, or even persecution, anyone who accidentally drops, for instance, a handkerchief. A fairly wilful and deliberate act will be required before an offence is committed. Perhaps I may say that I myself have taken a particular interest in this aspect of the matter, because I do not want to increase the number of unnecessary laws.
I have in mind a personal experience in this connection. I remember that, one wintry morning. I was passing the walls of Buckingham Palace and, unfortunately, a gust of wind removed a brand new hat from my head, whisking it over the wall into the Palace gardens—never to be seen again. I should have been highly indignant if, in addition to losing my new hat, I had been prosecuted for spreading litter.
The Bill as drafted will not. I believe, lead to unnecessary prosecutions. There is, however, I must admit, one aspect of the problem which still causes me some concern—whether confetti throwing will remain legal or not. If anyone wishes to continue to indulge in this practice after the passing of the Bill, he should either use edible confetti, which will, I hope, be consumed by the birds, or he should use soluble confetti, which will disappear, and then the evidence will likewise disappear.
The Bill I seek to introduce contains no magic. It certainly will not solve this very grave problem. Parliament can help, by tackling the matter, however, by dealing with it as other nations have done—on a universal basis—by making the spreading of litter an offence throughout the length and breadth of Britain.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins: I should not like the Motion to be passed without a word being said from this side of the House in support of the proposed Measure.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but the Standing Order allows only another speech against the Bill.

Question put and agreed to

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Speir, Mr. Collins, Mr. John Hill, Lieutenant-Commander Maydon, Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Russell, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. John Taylor, Dame Irene Ward, Mrs. Eirene White, and Mr. Whitelaw.

LITTER

Bill to make provision for the abatement of litter, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Orders of the Day — OPENCAST COAL BILL

Order for Second Reading read

3.40 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a complicated Bill containing a fairly wide range of legal provisions and it clearly will need considerable study in the course of the Committee stage. I do not believe it to be a controversial Bill, but it is just the sort of Bill that will benefit particularly by scrutiny in Committee from hon. Members, on both sides. The Government will certainly preserve an open mind and welcome advice and suggestions on this matter from all quarters.
In moving the Second Reading, I do not think I should enter into any great detail but should rather confine myself to the broad principles. No doubt, in the course of the debate, hon. Members on both sides will raise a number of points. My hon. Friend the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who has already applied his acute mind to this complicated problem, will be glad to answer points that are raised. I conceive it my duty to put forward the main reasons for this act of legislation, the purpose of which, broadly speaking, is to substitute statutory provisions for the emergency regulations under which opencast coal mining is now carried out.
I want to try to show why, in the opinion of the Government, the existing powers are unsatisfactory; why, having got rid of the existing powers, we still need opencast coal and, therefore, must have other and statutory powers; and finally, that the powers which we propose in the Bill are, broadly speaking, adequate for their purpose but not excessive. That is really the purpose of a Second Reading speech in these circumstances.
Let us take the first point—why we consider that the existing system is not satisfactory. At the moment opencast coal mining is carried on under Defence Regulations, that is, under emergency powers. There are three reasons why we do not regard that as satisfactory. First,


the present system does not work perfectly. There are, in detail at least, disadvantages and anomalies in the existing system. Secondly, the regulations themselves contain very wide and drastic powers, which are not, in fact, used widely or drastically but which are capable of being so used. We think that they should be removed.
Finally, we feel that more than twelve years after the end of the war, it is time to do away with emergency legislation and to place the powers that are needed in these matters upon a proper statutory basis, properly approved by this House through the normal processes of legislation. I hope that the House in general will accept that those are adequate reasons, as I believe they are, for doing away with the present systems of Defence Regulations.
My next duty is to show that there will be a continuing need for opencast coal for a considerable period. I think we all recognise, once again, that the process of opencast coal mining is very distasteful in many ways and does great damage to the amenities of the countryside and inflicts considerable hardship on many of our citizens. Therefore, one should prove the continuing need for opencast coal.
Altogether, since opencast mining started, about 160 million tons of coal have been produced by this method. That is a very large amount indeed. The amount of ground taken up for this purpose is 109,000 acres, or just about one-quarter of 1 per cent. of all the agricultural land in the country. It is, therefore, fair to say that the very great value of the coal which has been extracted can be contrasted with the relatively small proportion of agricultural land taken up for these purposes.
Last year we got 13½ million tons of opencast coal, which to import would cost us about £100 million, most of which would have to be paid in dollars. The Government consider that coal must be a plus and not a minus in the balance of payments. In fact, substantial progress has been made in that direction. Last year, the net effect of coal was to earn more by our exports than it cost us to import coal. That is a process which, we consider, must certainly continue. We must aim not only to meet our inland requirements, but also to expand our exports.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to large or small coal?

Mr. Maudling: I was coming to that point, which, I agree, is important.
It may be argued at the moment, first, that existing coal stocks are very large and, therefore, there is less need for opencast coal, and, secondly, that if we could obtain more coal from the deep mines we would not need opencast coal. It is certainly true that the more deep-mined coal we can obtain, the less to some extent is the need for opencast; but it would, I suggest, be wrong today to embark upon a lengthy discussion about the situation in the coal mining industry as a whole, interesting as that would be.
The fact is that present stocks are at record levels, but we should be careful of making too many assumptions on that basis. It would not take more than a few weeks of cold weather or a rapid expansion of industrial output to see those stocks disappearing altogether. We must not forget that.
The present level of our stocks—this was the point, I think, that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) had in mind—arises partly because of the falling production of large coal in the total "make" of coal. It is to some extent because of the disproportion between the two that we are getting these stocks of small coal on our hands. As the hon. Member will be aware, the National Coal Board is now starting an energetic campaign, first, to stop the fall in the proportion and, later, to increase the proportion of large coal in the total "make". That will help to ease the position concerning any existing surplus stocks.
By and large, however, when looking at, say, the next ten years, it seems quite clear on any reasonable assumption about industrial activity that the rising demand for energy must outstrip even the most optimistic estimates of the production of coal from the deep mines. Within the ten-year period, we expect, as the House knows, that nuclear power will make a growing contribution to this problem, but it will be only a small contribution relative to the gap between demand and supply. Certainly, the demand for oil and the import of oil will increase over the next ten years, all of which is a burden on our balance of payments.
Therefore, both from the point of view of the growing need for importing energy and from the point of view of the need for expanding our exports of coal, it seems to me that on balance of payments grounds the case for continuing opencast mining for some years is quite undeniable. I do not say that it will be necessary to continue at the present level for the next ten years—I hope not, by any means—but certainly, for five years or so, I should have thought that the present level of output would be essential. Then, we can look at the situation again. For the period contemplated in the Bill, however, some level of opencast mining seems quite essential for balance of payments reasons.
That certainly does not justify the mining of coal at any cost. In our consideration of the coal industry, we must consider more and more the cost factor, which, I know, the Coal Board is doing. Until recently, it has been true to say that any coal produced in this country, however expensive to produce, was still cheaper than imported energy, but, with the fall in freight rates, and so on, the position is showing quite a change. We must study carefully the true economics of coal production, particularly in the areas and pits where the costs of production are highest.
So far as opencast is concerned, however, production costs are relatively low and the profit that the Coal Board makes on opencast coal is relatively high. The House as a whole would, I think, agree that we should help the Coal Board to develop, so far as it can, the most efficient and profitable sources of coal production.

Mr. Frederick Lee: In considering this interesting question of the economic cost of coal, would the Paymaster-General ask the Coal Board to look at the cost incurred by subsidence, to see whether the advantages of getting coal in certain areas where subsidence is prevalent are worth the damage which the Board's operations cause to houses?

Mr. Maudling: I know that the Coal Board is considering carefully its costs of production at present, and I am fairly certain that it has that factor in mind, but I will make a note of it and make sure it has, because it is a very important matter.
I hope that the House will consider that adequate justification of the need for continuing opencast coal mining. It rests entirely upon balance of payments requirements. Considering the state of the reserves and the fact that the opencast coal we got last year would have cost £100 million to import, I think that the continuing need for opencast mining at some level is undeniable.
My next argument must be this: that it is necessary to have some legislation to continue opencast mining because it may well be asked, why cannot we abolish the emergency regulations and leave opencast mining to be controlled by the existing law? I think the reasons why special legislation is necessary fall under three heads. First, the planning problem; secondly, the acquisition of rights to use the land; and, thirdly, compensation so owners and occupiers.
As for the planning procedure, we feel that the machinery of the Town and Country Planning Acts and the local planning authorities is not really adequate for this situation. That is for two reasons. First, because the need for opencast coal is a national and not a local need and, therefore, needs planning on a national scale. Secondly, because one of the important things in the planning procedure in these matters is to impose, when consent is given, proper technical conditions for minimising the damage and for the proper restoration of the land. We believe that the adequate technical knowledge concerning the imposition of these conditions resides in the Ministry of Power. For both those reasons we believe that it is right for my noble friend the Minister of Power in these circumstances, in consultation, of course, with his colleagues, to have the function of giving what is called deemed planning permission.
When we come to the acquisition of land it is the intention of the Coal Board to obtain rights to work opencast coal by agreement wherever possible, but there may be circumstances in which it may have to use compulsory powers. I think it has been accepted since 1923 when the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act was passed that some reserve compulsory powers are needed to ensure the exploitation of the coal resources of the country. I think that has been an agreed principle since 1923, but we feel that the procedures of High Court action, and


so on, provided for in the 1923 Act, are really too cumbersome and too slow-operating to meet the situation and, that, therefore, something special in the nature of this 13ill is required.

Mr. Tom Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a compulsory purchase order ought to be the last resort, in view of the bitterness which has been engendered by the working of opencast coal in many agricultural areas?

Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree. I was giving what I intended to be an assurance from the Coal Board that it would in every case proceed by agreement in the first instance, but I think it will be common ground in the House, in the light of thirty-five years' policy in these matters, that some reserve powers must exist. These compulsory powers are not as extensive as compulsory purchase powers: they amount to powers for compulsory use not compulsory purchase.
The final reason why legislation is necessary is because of compensation. There are two reasons why the general law of compensation is not adequate. First, because it would in practice, I understand, give levels of compensation lower than those in practice at present imposed under the Defence Regulations, and those themselves, I think, are very hard in many cases; and, secondly, because, under the special compulsory rights we are proposing, the system of allowing the Coal Board to use the land, and not to go in for powers of compulsory purchase, introduces into our law a new principle which involves the introduction of new rights of compensation.
For all those reasons I would argue that, having got rid of the emergency powers, and recognising the continuing need for opencast, we must put on the Statute Book some specific provisions agreed by this House to cover planning control and the acquisition of land and the compensation of those affected. I will briefly explain how the provisions of the Bill meet these various requirements.
First, planning control. It is provided that no opencast operations can take place without the permission of the Minister. This extends to prospecting as well. In the electricity industry, a matter which we discussed recently in this House, a board has power, with certain notice, to enter on people's land for the purpose of

surveying. Surveying for opencast mining is a much more laborious and a much bigger business very often than is surveying for electricity purposes, and so it is provided in this Bill that the Minister must give his permission for any prospecting operations.
In the actual conduct of opencast operations planning permission or deemed planning permission will be given, as I said earlier, by the Minister in consultation with his colleagues after following the detailed procedure set out in the First Schedule to the Bill, which follows very closely the existing procedures under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act. Consents which are issued by the Minister will contain all the normal planning conditions, and, in particular, the Minister will insert conditions ensuring that damage is reduced to the minimum. It is provided in the Bill that when agricultural land is affected the condition must be inserted that the land be restored to a reasonably fit state for agricultural use.
I think it is true to say—obviously I do not want to make a party point of this; it would not be really relevant—that in the early stages of opencast operations and for some time a lot of the restoration was not very good. The subsoil and the topsoil were mixed up, and so on. I think that recently there has been a very great improvement, and my belief is that by and large most people affected would say that the standards of restoration in this country are good. We intend to follow the general standards of the 1951 code in restoration, which we are considering with the agricultural organisations. They have made some suggestions to us for improving that code, and we are to discuss these with them. Needless to say we welcome any suggestions by hon. Members as to improvements which they think could in practice be made in this code. Perhaps that is a matter which we shall be discussing in Committee.
A relevant question which may arise in the minds of some hon. Members is how all this relates to the Franks Committee's Report. The drafting of the Bill had to continue and be finalised before we could make up our minds, as a Government, on the detailed application of the Franks Committee's Report. The House is aware from the recent debate of our general attitude to this. What will


happen is that when we introduce the Measures which flow from the Report they will be applied to opencast coal mining so far as possible by administrative methods, which are quicker, but where legislation is necessary any legislation on the Franks Committee's Report will include any necessary amendments of this Measure to bring it into line with the Report.
We thought it better not to delay this Bill, because of the Parliamentary programme, by awaiting the full legislation on the Franks Committee's Report. In the meantime, we have introduced into the Bill certain of the main points made in the Report of that Committee. For example, the Coal Board will have to make a full statement of its case to people who object to what it wants to do, and the Minister will have to give reasons for his decisions in all opencast cases. That, I think, should indicate to the House that we are in this legislation following very much the spirit of the Franks Committee's recommendations in these matters, and I hope that that will commend itself to hon. Members.
I turn next to the question of acquiring the land or acquiring the rights in the land. It is the intention of the Government and of the Coal Board to proceed in every case where possible by agreement, but we provide in the Bill for what is known as a "compulsory rights order," which may be necessary if it is not possible to reach a reasonable agreement. The compulsory rights order is something quite new. It does not amount to acquiring the land. It amounts to giving the Coal Board the right for ten years to use the land for purposes of opencast mining. The ten years are a maximum period and the order cannot operate for more than ten years.
I want to make it clear on behalf of the Coal Board that it will be prepared to buy the land at a proper commercial free-market price, in any case where the owner wants to sell the land and says, "I cannot take it back. It is no good to me."

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: If that be the case, surely, over a period of years—and we must envisage the Bill stretching forward twenty years—the Coal Board would become one of the largest farmers in the country. That is

surely contrary to good Conservative policy.

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend, as sometimes happens, is a little too quick off the mark. If he had not interrupted me I was about to say that having acquired the land when people wanted to sell it, the Coal Board, after the opencast operations had been completed, would dispose of it.

Mr. Nabarro: Is there any requirement in the Bill that the Coal Board should dispose of land, or is that mere speculation?

Mr. Maudling: There is no requirement in the Bill that the Coal Board should dispose of it or buy it, but it is a matter on which the Coal Board has declared its intentions, and it has authorised me to inform the House of what it intends to do.
It is, in a way, the novelty of these powers under the compulsory rights order for a ten years' user, rather than complete acquisition, that leads to many of the complexities of the Bill which we shall have to consider in Committee. Broadly speaking, the procedure envisaged follows the compulsory orders procedure in the Acquisition of Land Act with all the safeguards provided there individually adjusted as necessary to user rather than owner. In addition, there are further safeguards in that, first, powers would be limited to use for ten years. No dwelling-house can be taken over or any building if it is not going to be restored, and no land if it is comprised in a previous order.

Mr. Harold Davies: There is a very small point, but an important one to country lovers. I can envisage something happening which has actually happened in my constituency. A cornfield through which there was a public right of way was taken over for opencast mining. When the opencast mining is completed, is there any guarantee that the right of way for the public will be restored after the land has been restored?

Mr. Maudling: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. In Clause 13 there is power to stop up footpaths, but the Minister is required to restore the right of way when the mining operations have been carried out and when he is satisfied that it is no longer necessary


that the right of way should be suspended. He is also required to see that alternative ways are provided.

Mr. Alfred Robens: I would not have interrupted the right hon. Gentleman had it not been for the announcement he has just made, which is quite new, that the Coal Board has authorised him to say that it proposes to purchase land where it can and dispose of it after the coal mining operations have been completed and the land has been restored. Now the right hon. Gentleman goes back to the Bill and says that under it a house must not be pulled down unless it is to be restored. How does that tie up with what he said about the purchase of land?
When the Coal Board becomes the owner of a piece of land on which there are houses and buildings it can, presumably, tear down those houses and buildings to get at the opencast coal and, since the Board is then the owner of the land, if it wishes to sell it afterwards it need not necessarily re-erect the houses and buildings.
The right hon. Gentleman left consideration of the Bill to tell us what the Coal Board wants to do. But when the Board becomes the owner of land is it a free owner, and entitled to do with the land what a private owner would be entitled to do with it, or does it have to deal with the question of restoration of houses and buildings?

Mr. Maudling: The powers under the Bill are solely powers to the Coal Board, to have the use of the land for ten years, after which it must return it to the owner. It cannot use compulsory powers to take over a dwelling-house, and if it uses any compulsory powers which affect a building, it must restore the building. But, quite apart from the Bill and the compulsory powers, I repeat that the Coal Board has said that if any owner says, "It is no good taking my land for ten years and then giving it me back. I want to go somewhere else," and he volunteers to sell the land, it can be purchased. As a matter of policy and not of law, the Board will buy the land at a fair market price. After the opencast mining has been completed, the Board will dispose of the land. It does not want to become involved in the large-scale operation of farmland in addition to its own activities.

Mr. Nabarro: If it is the Government's intention to prevent the Coal Board becoming large-scale farmers, why not put that in the Bill?

Mr. Maudling: The Coal Board does not need statutory powers to buy the property. Therefore, I do not see why we should deal with that point at all. There is hardly need to provide in the Bill statutory powers for the Board to dispose of something which it does not need statutory powers to buy.
The final point of difference in procedure is on the question of compensation. The provisions of the Bill are in themselves novel because they are based on a new form of compulsory right, but I think that they will be found to be more satisfactory and more generous to the people affected by the operations of opencast coalmining. We must always bear in mind that when we come to compensate people in these circumstances it is extremely difficult to go the whole way. We can be quite clear that when someone's land is ruined over the years it can be restored, but what happens to his life and his livelihood and to the people next door who, perhaps, do not like the sight of opencast mining?
We cannot, however, go beyond the principles of planning legislation and the normal laws of nuisance. It would he fair to state that the Coal Board, like any other industrial enterprise in the country, should be and is subject to the normal laws of nuisance and the normal planning procedures which are the methods accepted by the House as being, the proper ways of protecting individuals against disturbance of the enjoyment of their own property.
On the question of compensation to the occupier of land taken over, the first item will be the annual rent of the holding as a whole, less the part which he retains. I find this a rather complicated point. At the moment, if a man has a holding and we take half away, we say that we will pay him half the rent of the entire holding, but the half with which he is left is worth less than half of the original holding. That will be taken into account. Compensation will be the rent of the entire holding less the true value of what is left. I think that that is fair and an improvement.
The question arises of loss of profit. At present, provision is made under


various regulations passed in recent years to cover this point by a rather arbitrary extra payment, relating his rent to what is assumed his profit would be by a mathematical formula. We think that this is a little too arbitrary in its operation and we intend to substitute for that formula one which will give the dispossessed holder compensation based on the profit he would have obtained from his holding less the amount of profit he could reasonably have expected to make on what he has left. In other words, if he loses the entire holding lie gets what would have been a reasonable profit on the lot. If he loses half, he gets what he would have made on the lot less what he would have expected to get on the remaining land.
There is also a provision in the Fifth Schedule for something about which a number of my hon. Friends are concerned, namely, mitigation of damage. The Schedule says that taking into account the amount of compensation to be paid regard must be paid to what the man could have done himself to mitigate the loss. Here, a difficult problem arises. I do not think that one can say that if we take away a man's holding we will pay him all the profit he would have obtained in working that holding, and that he can sit back and draw all that profit for ten years and do nothing. I do not believe that that is a proposition which this House would support.
On the other hand, we cannot expect a man who has lived his life as a farmer immediately to dash away and do something entirely different, and say that if he does not do so he cannot be paid the full compensation. In the course of the Committee stage, therefore, we shall have to look closely into this point to try to reconcile the definite and conflicting interests of the consumer of coal and of the individual concerned.

Mr. T. Brown: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because the question of compensation is vital to farmers. What would be the position under the Schedule where visitation of the Coal Board, with its opencast mining and working, happens four times? Will four lots of compensation be paid to the person concerned, or will he have to be satisfied with the first compensation payment?

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's point. If the Coal Board takes over the whole of a man's holding, or perhaps part for a term of years—and ten years will be the maximum—during that period he will not be able to operate it. Therefore, he will be compensated both in respect of his land and loss of profit. Also, he will be given the expenses of vacating that part of his holding, moving his livestock, and so on.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understood me correctly. I was referring to the position where opencast mining operations are performed in the first place, say, in 1944. Then, in pit terms, there is the back fill. Then the Board restores the land. Then it comes along in 1948 and takes for opencast mining the same piece of land which it has worked already, but this time takes a deeper measure. In that case will the owner get compensation for the first lot of damage, for the second, for the third, and for the fourth?

Mr. Maudling: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if there are four lots of damage the man will get four lots of compensation. This point is covered by what I was saying earlier about the limitation of the powers of compulsory acquisition which exclude dwelling houses and other buildings, and also land comprised in a previous order. This is in Clause 6 (3):
No compulsory rights order shall be made so as to comprise any land which is or has been comprised in a previous compulsory rights order, other than a previous order made in accordance with the last preceding section.
I think that he is covered, and in so far as he is damaged more than once, he will certainly be compensated more than once. That is the principle in the Bill.

Mr. Brown: I hope so. So far, it has not been so.

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman feels that is not fully covered, no doubt during the Committee stage, he or some of his hon. Friends, will raise the point. That is our intention. Our intentions are always honourable and open in these matters.
Those are the main points that affect the compensation of occupiers. I come next to the compensation of owners. This will be based, first, on the continued use


of the land. Secondly, they will be entitled to the restoration of their property. In the case of agricultural land, as I have said, orders made under the Bill impose a condition that agricultural land is restored to a condition of reasonable fitness for agricultural use.
In addition, the owner will get the difference in value of his land before and after the operation of the compulsory rights order. In other words, if the land is worth £10,000 when the Coal Board starts to operate and £8,000 when the land is restored, he will get the difference between the two. Here, I should mention an important point, namely that the valuation of the land at the beginning of this period will be based on its open market value and not on its value on the basis of compulsory purchase.
As the House is aware, in the case of compulsory purchase by many public authorities the value taken is not the market value but the value which would have been given if compulsory purchase had been exercised. We are now providing that the difference shall be the difference between the open market value of the land before and after use by the Coal Board, which seems to us to be the only fair basis on which to operate.
As an alternative, in the case of agricultural land the owner will be entitled to require the Coal Board to restore the land not merely to a state of reasonable fitness, but to its full original state for agricultural purposes, if that can be done at a reasonable cost. I am sorry to use the word "reasonable" so often in these circumstances, but the House will be aware that it is impossible to lay down precise definitions in all these matters.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Would it not take several seasons before one would know whether the land had recovered its original fertility? It will not take place at once, but will probably take two, three, or four years.

Mr. Charles Grey: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that question, may I ask who is to judge whether on not the land is properly restored?

Mr. Maudling: In reply to the first question, it is true that these things often take time, but that is not a question of the principle but of how to establish

the evidence to ensure that the principle is carried out.
In reply to the second question, the hon. Gentleman will find that in all these matters provision is made for appeal to the Lands Tribunal in the case of dispute. The Lands Tribunal works effectively in these matters. However, if anyone feels that the provision for disputes in these matters is not adequate, we can consider that at a later stage.
Those are the main provisions on compensation, which I believe are both more generous and more just than those which exist at present. They will entail certain consequential adjustments as between landlord and tenant, and are broadly intended to ensure that in the case where a compulsory rights order is imposed the relation between landlord and tenant in respect of short term use is the same as when the tenant vacates his holding voluntarily. In other words, to ensure that the proper legal rights of both landlord and tenant are not upset to the detriment of either, this new procedure on compulsory rights orders is introduced.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. There are a lot of special provisions in later Clauses. For instance, there is the stopping up of footpaths, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) referred. There is the question of special land, that is, land in the possession of religious bodies.

Mr. Harold Davies: The British Waterworks Association too?

Mr. Maudling: Yes. I have seen that document myself. There is the licensing of small opencast operators to bring them into line with the small deep mine operators under the Act. There are also some complicated transitional provisions. By and large, however, the main provisions of the Bill are those which I have been trying to outline.
To sum up, briefly, my argument for the Second Reading of the Bill is as follows. It is high time to do away with the emergency law on this matter and to put it on a permanent basis. We must continue to have some level of opencast mining for some time. We all agree that the less damage that can be done to the countryside by it the better, and, therefore, the whole process must be under close planning control.
The existing law in the absence of emergency legislation is not adequate by itself to deal with the problem. Therefore, we propose this Statute, which will put the planning procedure on a definite and directly controlled basis, giving full opportunities for protests, public inquiry, and so on. We are placing the compulsory powers on a much more limited basis than the compulsory acquisition of land which appears in previous legislation. Finally, we are making provision for compensation which, as I said earlier, is both more generous and more just than the existing system.
I said in opening my speech that this is a Bill of such complexity and detail that much useful work can be done in Committee on particular details, and the Government will be grateful for advice and help in shaping its final form. In the meantime, I would express the hope that the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill.

Mr. William Ross: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance—he has referred to the fact that the Bill is very complicated—that there will be a Scottish Law Officer on the Government Front Bench during the Committee stage? There is added to every Clause a subsection concerned with special references, deletions, and so on, which make it almost impossible for anyone readily to understand what will happen in Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that that lies in my hands, but I will take note of the fact that a number of Scottish legal points are involved, to which I am sure I shall not know the answer.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: The Paymaster-General, with his usual facility for explaining complicated and detailed Measures, has obliged us all by the very clear way in which he has described the Bill. It is a complicated Bill with its 47 Clauses and eight Schedules and its numerous references to 15 other Acts. I anticipate that in Committee there will be a very long, detailed and serious examination of many matters which hon. Members on all sides will want to raise.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's plea for a unanimous Second Reading, I would say right away that my hon.

Friends and I feel that the case is well made out and that the time has come when, in continuing opencast coal mining operations, we should cease to operate under the Defence Regulations and should operate under a Bill such as this approved by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill in principle. I would add the warning that in Committee the Bill will have to be given very detailed consideration. As we do not oppose the Bill in principle, I hope that in Committee both sides will apply themselves not on party lines but on lines which will be for the benefit of the country.
I had the task for four years—I was about to say "the unfortunate task", but it was one which I enjoyed very much indeed—of looking after the opencast coal mining programme when the Labour Party was in office and I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the then Ministry of Fuel and Power. I should like to extend a welcome to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. He takes over a very important position in his Government. I hope that he will have a very happy and successful time, though I hope that he will not want me to go on to say that I trust that he will be a long time in that post with his Government. However, our good wishes are with him. I am sure he will find that those of us who deal with the fuel and power industries on this side of the House will always be ready to listen to good arguments and to make our contributions in a constructive manner.
The Minister has also made out the case for the continuation of opencast coal mining. I would not go so far as to say that all opencast coal mining is a bad thing. I suppose I have visited as many opencast coal mining sites in the United Kingdom as anyone in the House. I have visited sites which have grieved me considerably. I think of the opencast coal mining that we did at the historic mansion, Wentworth Woodhouse, and in many areas in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), rural areas and copses which it seemed a great shame to tear and root up.
Equally, I have seen areas where, in the end, opencast coal mining operations have been very beneficial to the countryside.


I remember that in South Wales the top of a mountain was sliced off, the anthracite was taken out and the top was put back, in a rather better condition than it was originally. It was a considerable improvement to the area. It would be wrong to say that all opencast mining is bad.
Britain needs the coal and must have it. However, when we get the coal, let us do it with justice to the people who live on the sites and in the area around. Let us be fair to them. Let us remember that we, in our day and generation, are only the trustees of the land upon which we live, that we have had it handed on to us and that it is our duty to ensure that it is handed on to our successors in a better condition and not a worse one than when we inherited it. We have no right to talk in terms even of the market value of the land when it is restored. No one can give the value of an acre of good agriculture land to this country in the years that lie ahead. What we must do is restore the land to the best possible condition. We must give justice to the people who are disturbed, and must make the nuisance arising from opencast coal mining as little as we possibly can.

Mr. John Hynd: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in the context of responsibility for our heritage in the land, to make some comment upon the unsightly "cemeteries" which have been left by deep-mined coal operations, the derelict villages and the slag heaps throughout the country?

Mr. Robens: I have no doubt that when we are considering other Measures which sometimes come before us we can have a good discussion about the way the land of the country has been desecrated during the years with gravel pits, and so on. It is not our purpose to go into that in great detail now. We are concerned at the moment to deal specifically with opencast coal mining.
I wonder whether the country realises what serious damage has been done to our export trade in coal because over the the last few years we have been unable to guarantee supplies for long enough to satisfy people on the Continent who wanted to import British coal, and that today American coal is firmly entrenched

in the European market. Because shipping freights have fallen from their peak of 150s. per ton to 25s. per ton today, American coal can now go into the European markets at 10s. per ton less than the price at which we can supply it.
This is an important aspect of our economy. The Minister was right to stress the fact that we should push up our exports to the utmost, but we shall never be able to have large exports unless we can guarantee the importers that they will continuously get the coal that they want. It is no use saying to the importers in the middle of a season, "We are sorry but we have to deliver short, and we cannot deliver anything at all for next year." That is not the way in which to maintain our markets.
The coal which we have obtained from opencast operations has, overall, balanced the export position. I should like the Government to make a decision about coal exports and fix a figure, which I should hope would be a high one, certainly more than 10 million tons a year, and declare that we will export that amount, determined faithfully to keep to our bargain, and at the same time take steps within the country to ensure that we manage with what is left either by increasing production or by some of the other methods which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
I take the opportunity to utter this warning. We shall not get our export trade hack unless we make a real attempt now and unless we can guarantee to importers of large quantities—power stations on the Continent and so on—continuity of the supply of the coal that they want at a suitable price resulting from our successful mining operations.
I also envisage that opencast mining might even become a regular part of our ordinary mining operations. I see no reason why it should not. That would not mean that we should have opencast coal mining on the enormous scale that we have it today. I see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head. I would remind him of the terrible disaster which took place in Scotland a few years ago. Men were working from below; they got too near the surface and the slimy, oozy bed of a swamp came through and killed many of them. They were working too close to the surface.
In my view, we cannot leave such marginal coal, because it is too valuable. With big diggers one can get down to about 250 ft. without benching—in the case of a new contract in Scotland it is possible to get down to about 600 ft.—and so there is no reason now why miners' lives should be risked in obtaining coal which lies too near the surface. There is no reason why the country should lose valuable seams of coal—coking coal in Durham and places like that, for instance—when, by opencast mining, we can get this marginal coal at no extra cost, but with a saving of lives of men in the pits. This would not be on an extensive scale, but if I were responsible for future mining policy, I should certainly give consideration to using opencast mining as part of the ordinary mining operations for this marginal coal as a contribution to safety in the mines.
The Bill will be important, and I do not believe that opencast coal mining will finish at the end of ten years. The Bill says that opencast operations will finish at the end of ten years and that we shall cease to bother about opencast coal on any large scale because after that time, apart from the conclusion of contracts begun in the tenth year which might continue to the twentieth year—as was indicated by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—the Coal Board will be able to conclude contracts for opencast operations only on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller.
I do not know what magic there is in ten years. In the seventh year, contractors having to pay probably £350,000 or even £500,000 for the big diggers will not want to put that amount of money into buying machinery for opencast operations without some guarantee of continuity of working, unless they can see some use for the machinery afterwards. I am not sure that it is a good thing to tie ourselves to ten years.
Let us bring opencast coal mining to a stop where it is injurious to the nation and where its advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages in disturbing the farming community. Let us bring it to a stop when it is sensible to bring it to a stop and not after a magic period of ten years. I have seen programmes for opencast coal working changed so frequently that I have no faith in those people who tell me that a programme will

be completed in ten years. In all the years since 1945 I have not seen an opencast coal programme which has not caused trouble to the people doing the job, especially those building the machines.
It is not a question of going to the site, surveying the coal and saying, "There is the coal which we can get" There must be a sensible approach to this matter, and I cannot believe that after this magic ten years the opencast coal programme must virtually come to an end. We should reconsider that proposal and apply our minds to devising a formula whereby opencast coal operations will naturally tail off to marginally small quantities—two, three or even five million tons a year—at a time when it is in the nation's interests so to do. We should not put ourselves into the situation of deciding today that in ten years we will not need this coal.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to take us through the way in which planning control and tenancy rights will be obtained for the National Coal Board. We can go into this in great detail in Committee, but, as I understand it, the Bill authorises the use of land for opencast coal where actual working is to take place. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give some attention to these important points.
An opencast coal site cannot be operated without two other things. One is a disposal point and the other is a stocking ground.

Mr. Nabarro: And a washery.

Mr. Robens: It is not necessary to have a washery in connection with these opencast coal sites. The washeries of neighbouring collieries can be used, and it is not always necessary to have a washery to deal with the opencast coal.

Mr. Nabarro: I would not say that it is always necessary. The right hon. Gentleman will remember his former boss's quarrels with me in 1950 and 1951 about opencast coal going to the domestic consumer. In many instances the sources of opencast coal are not near to a washery and it is not practicable to wash the opencast coal. It is that which has caused so much dissatisfaction among domestic consumers.

Mr. Robens: That may be, but it is not vitally necessary to have a washery with


every opencast coal site, whereas an opencast coal site cannot be operated unless there is a disposal site and a stocking ground. That is the only difference between us. What I have indicated is essential for the operation, and a washery may or may not be needed according to the circumstances. There is no question about the necessity for a disposal point and a stocking ground.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: Would the right hon. Gentleman also include in his necessities an efficient carrying system between the disposal point and the stocking ground? Is he aware that in many parts of the country the carrying of coal produces one of the greatest menaces to pedestrians and motorists?

Mr. Robens: If I can go on for a little while without interruption, I am sure that I will cover all of these points, because I am well aware of them. It is true that One must take coal to the disposal point or stocking ground. It is true that a tremendous nuisance for local authorities can be caused by spillage on the roadways and by other things.
I do not want to include a whole list of things which are necessary for an opencast coal site, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for acquiring land which is not to be actually worked for opencast coal but is to be used for a stocking ground or a disposal point. There is not always a disposal point for each opencast site. There may be one disposal point for two or three or even more sites. However, without a disposal point one cannot operate.
If the Bill does not include provision for the compulsory acquisition of a disposal point, the Coal Board could be in the situation of having gone through all the elaborate procedure for getting the sites and for arranging contracts and then needing a few acres of land for a disposal site, the landowner being in the wonderful position of being able to get virtually what he likes for that land.
That is an impossible situation. What is even worse is the fact that the landowner could say that he would not sell the land to the Coal Board at any price. The House is agreed that opencast operations are necessary, and has provided a Bill for them. We cannot possibly have a Bill of this kind without at the same

time providing that the Coal Board shall be able to gets its disposal points and stocking grounds. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that some consideration has been given to these matters and even that the Bill deals with them. If they are not covered by the Bill, I hope that he will say that the Government are prepared to consider this matter and to deal with it in Committee.
I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with those people whom I believe to have been under-compensated. I do not say that the Coal Board has robbed them or treated them unfairly, but in many cases there has been under-compensation. I have been to farmhouses where the opencast site has been dug almost up to the walls of the house, where women could not possibly keep a house clean, where a house has been dusted thoroughly and three hours later has been just as dusty as before, where women with two or three children have been living under such conditions for three or four years and where the farmhouse has been on a small piece of land, almost like an oasis in the middle of this enormous uprooting of land.
No compensation is paid for that; and while money will not prevent the dusty house, will not prevent the twenty-four hours' noise and racket, will not prevent all the inconvenience and, very often, the heartbreaks, the provision of some financial easement does improve matters. People who have been put into this position cannot look at it objectively as we can and talk in terms of the balance of trade and the contribution made to it. All they know is that their lovely little home has been ruined, that nobody seems to care, and officials say, "I am sorry, but there is nothing we can do because nothing is provided."
If we are to be just, we must look very closely at compensation and make sure that the Board is not required to pay more than it ought to pay; but if we are to err, let us err on the side of generosity to those who are being upset by reason of opencast coal operations. No one could say that we could not afford a few thousand pounds in that direction after profits have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked the Paymaster-General about four times compensation.


I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman understood the point clearly, but the truth is that my hon. Friend happens to be in a constituency where opencast coal mining started early.

Mr. T. Brown: One of the first.

Mr. Robens: Therefore, the machinery then available was not of the character which was available ten years later. It was only possible to take out coal which was a very short distance from the surface. When bigger machines came along they went back to the original site, because it was known that there were more coal seams below, so they turned the land up once again. It may not have been turned up four times, but it has been done twice. The point that my hon. Friend was making was, what is the compensation position if that should happen again? The answer is that now, with the big machines, it is hardly likely that the Coal Board will open a site and a few years later go back with a bigger machine to take out a lower seam. That is a serious point upon which the Minister might like to comment.

Mr. Maudling: I did find it difficult to follow the point. However, it is covered by Clause 6 (3), which says that a compulsory rights order cannot be made in those circumstances. When use of land has been made in the past, the power to make a compulsory rights order is excluded, and the question of compensation cannot arise because the damage cannot arise.

Mr. T. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has still not understood the point. The point—which has been emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)—is, what will be the position of these farmers when they are visited three or four times? There is one farmer in my constituency on whose land there is an opencast coal site, and the Coal Board is now on its fourth visitation. One of the things that trouble me is the colossal amount of money spent in excavating and so on. After refilling and restoration there is a colossal waste of money in going to that site to obtain another coal measure from it.

Mr. Maudling: If the farmer's land has been dug up for coal mining purposes under the Defence Regulations and the

Coal Board says that it wants to do it again, the farmer can tell the Board to go away because it has no power to do so.

Mr. Robens: There are two further points of importance, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to them. All other matters which we could discuss a great deal today will probably be dealt with by hon. Members in Committee. I am concerned with the transfer of arrangements for opencast coal from the Defence Regulations to the new arrangements under this Bill. I am concerned with what happens to the land which will not be covered by the Bill—that is, the disposal points, stocking grounds, marshalling yards, and so on. When the Bill becomes law the land which is requisitioned for purposes other than the authorised use will not be covered. The present disposal sites will not be available to the National Coal Board except with the good will of the people who own the sites.
The second point is that the procedure under the Bill will take much longer than the Defence Regulation procedure. I do not complain about that because it is the method by which we now propose to deal with it. My impression is that in the change-over there is likely to be a loss of 2 million tons of opencast coal, which I do not think we could afford to lose. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise ways and means by which we can make this transfer from the Defence Regulations to the Bill so that we do not lose this coal. Two million tons of coal is a large amount, and it would be worth while to spend time in devising a method of making the transference dovetail in such a way that we do not lose the amount of coal that I have indicated is likely to be lost. Other hon. Members may have a more accurate figure, but I believe that it is about 2 million tons.
The last point I want to make relates to restoration. It is a small point, but I think that it is important. There is more argument about restoration than perhaps anything else in connection with a site. The code of 1951 emerged very patently out of a lot of experience and excellent work done by the farming community, the Ministry of Agriculture and those interested in making as sure as they possibly could that the land was restored to


give the very best possible value. Within this Bill it is proposed to continue to restore under the code. Discussions are now taking place with the farming and agricultural interests, and presumably with the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Coal Board, to improve upon that code.
I have no doubt that with the application of the technical advances in agriculture—new methods of fertilising, and so on—each year will bring an additional improvement in restoration. That is to be welcomed. This is the one point which causes a good deal of contention. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought under this Bill to make provision so that the code, when agreed, can be laid in this House as a regulation and discussed.
As I was saying earlier, the preservation of the land is not for us alone. I do not think that we as Parliamentarians ought to leave it entirely to those interested for the time being. It is our job to look after the future. I ask the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary whether they could consider this question and decide that the code shall be a regulation that could be laid before the House and debated. That would mean that as changes took place there would be the opportunity for debate on the regulations as to the efficiency of the code, to enable hon. Members to draw attention to deficiencies in the coal in their constituencies. This would not be ill-founded criticism of anybody, but a genuine desire by Parliament to perform one of its functions, namely, to preserve the land of Britain for future generations.
I have pleasure in saying on behalf of this side of the House that we accept the principle of the Bill and will give it a Second Reading without opposition.

4.49 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: Before making a few observations upon the Bill I want to follow the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) on becoming Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish him well in his appointment—in particular, those on this side who are interested in

power problems, because they will welcome his original and vigorous mind on the Front Bench in dealing with such matters.
This is a non-controversial Bill. I find myself almost wholly in agreement with what the right hon. Member for Blyth has been saying about it. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave us, as usual, a very lucid explanation of the Bill, and he made out a case for continuing opencast coal mining. I think that he satisfied the House that in the light of our balance of payments problem, and of the need for maintaining a reasonable level of exports, we must continue, at any rate for the time being, a degree of opencast coal mining somewhat on the level visualised, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Blyth.
Having said that, however, I feel that we are entitled to say that we are disappointed that we should now be in a position where such a Measure is necessary. The right hon. Member for Blyth may remember that in the course of the four years which he devoted to this problem he said—I believe that it was in July, 1950—that he visualised opencast mining tailing off by about 1953. No one can criticise him for having made that assumption at that time, but it is a melancholy fact that it proved to be ill-founded. We shall be hearing a good deal about 1 per cent. in tomorrow's economic debate. In this context, I would point out that if, from 1951 onwards, we had produced precisely the figure of 1 per cent. per annum more of deep-mined coal, this Measure would not be necessary today.
I mention 1951 in particular because that was the watershed in the fortune of the coal mining industry when, to some of us, it became apparent that unless there were drastic alterations both in the organisation and management of this industry there would be no increase in production and, indeed, we should probably see what has, in fact, occurred. That is all that I want to say upon the purely coal mining aspect of the matter.
The question of compensation is not one merely of giving money to a man who, for the time being, is dispossessed of his land. We have not only affected his way of life; we have disorganised


his life, it may be for many years. It is no good saying that he can go off and do something else. More often than not he is a farmer born and bred, with all his feelings, experience, and knowledge acquired over many years, and he is neither desirous nor specially fitted to take another occupation. He is certainly not a man who wants to sit back for years merely receiving an income for which he is not working. We have affected that man disproportionately, whatever compensation we may pay him, and we must always bear that point in mind.
As to restoration, some hon. Members on both sides of the House were engaged some years ago with a not dissimilar problem, namely, the restoration of ground which had been worked for iron ore. Certainly, at that time we became very well aware that this was a most complicated matter. It concerned not only drainage and water measures but also the restoration of the fertility of the land. The whole matter was excessively complicated.
I join in the plea made by the right hon. Member for Blyth that the code which has been in operation since 1951, to deal with restoration, should now become of a statutory nature so that we can debate it in the House and gain the benefit of all the work which was done in connection with the restoration of land worked for iron ore and all the experience of opencast coal mining gained since 1951.
There is one matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned with which I am not altogether in sympathy. He said that very large sums of money needed to be expended upon steam shovels, excavators and the like which were required for this type of opencast work, and that unless we continued this working for a considerable number of years much of the large amount of money invested would be lost. I assume that the great majority of these machines would be applicable to iron ore working which, as we now know, is descending to depths similar to that to which opencast mining has gone. It is not unusual now to have iron ore working up to 180 feet or even 250 feet, and I assume that many of the opencast machines could be transferred to that type

of work without any considerable loss of capital invested in those machines.
Those are the very brief observations that I wanted to make. My right hon. Friend has made out a sound case for the Bill. The compensation Clauses are capable of improvement in Committee, as we consider the matter in greater detail, but, subject to that, I welcome the Bill and wish it well.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) will forgive me if I do not follow him, particularly since I find myself in agreement with so much of what he has said. It would alter the whole tone of our discussions if I joined issue with him upon the points about which I disagree with him, and it can be better done in Committee. I hope, therefore, that he will not regard it as a discourtesy if I address myself to other points and, in particular, to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. In doing so, incidentally, I shall be replying to certain points raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
If we are going to make progress with this very complicated Bill, it is very important to be quite clear in our minds as to what is the Government's policy. That should be made absolutely clear, and it will certainly affect the Amendments which we shall be bringing forward in Committee. It seemed to me that the Minister did made out a case for the continuation of opencast mining. We must remember that hon. Members on this side of the House feel as strongly as any Members opposite about the interference with amenities, the disturbance, loss and inconvenience caused by this method of mining. On the other hand, we are as a nation under some economic necessities, and we cannot ignore the fact that at the moment we are obtaining 13½ million tons of coal from this source, in a single year.
That being so, we must ask ourselves if we should seek to obtain easy responses and hand-clappings by simply attacking opencast mining. None of us is in a position to make such an attack. We are all in it up to our necks, because for seventeen years we have gone forward with this work and have achieved, on the administrative side, a high


standard of discussion and a smoothness of negotiation, in spite of the drastic powers contained in Defence Regulations 51 and 51A.
I think it right that we should compliment the National Coal Board on the lessons it has learned. It is certainly not the case today that people are dealing with these matters in the rough way they did in the early years. They have now learned how to get together properly. So much so is this the case that I have received representations from persons not connected with the production side of mining but with the amenity side, representatives of local authorities and people in that position, asking that there should be preliminary consultations before the powers provided in this Bill are put into effect. A request for such consultation would be nonsensical if it were not really the present background and true position that such consultations have been found to be very agreeable and have reached a level where all parties are very happy about the way things are going on.
At the same time, however happily they are going on the administrative side, we all agree emphatically that the time must come when we must move from the Defence Regulations, leave Regulations 51 and 51A behind, and go on to a statutory code. Here a crucial point is the attitude of the Government in relation to opencast mining. I will read from paragraph 44 of the last Annual Report issued by the National Coal Board, in which it says:
As to the future, the Board will need every ton of opencast coal that can be produced to assist in reducing the gap between deep-mined production and the country's ever-increasing demands for fuel. This view was confirmed by the announcement in Parliament by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 1st November, 1956, that as far as could be foreseen it would be necessary to maintain opencast production at a high level for at least ten years if national requirements of coal were to be met. Moreover, costs of opencast production have been relatively stable, and lower than those incurred in the production of deep-mined coal.
In an earlier paragraph, reference is made to the fact that in the year under review there was a profit in this part of the industry of £8·64 millions, and since 1952, the date from which the National Coal Board took over, 54 million tons of coal have been obtained by this method.
Are the Government of the same mind today? If they are, and if they want this

13½million tons, which could be increased under present methods certainly to 15 million tons—I do not think there can be any question of disagreement about that estimate—there would have to be a tapering-off from the present position to the position sought to be created in this Bill, and it would have to be done very gently and over a number of years. If we jump from the present situation under the Defence Regulations to that proposed by this Bill, I put it to the Minister that that really means that the Government are budgeting for a lower production of coal in this field. They cannot bring in this Bill in its present form without reducing the production of opencast coal, and I will give reasons in a moment.
It seems to me, and I want to be as non-controversial as I can, that either the National Coal Board has gone back on that pronouncement in accepting the provisions of this Bill, or, on the contrary, the Coal Board has not altered its position but the Government have overridden the Board. I think it is in the public interest that we should know exactly where we stand. If the Government want opencast mining to fail, but fail gradually, I could quite understand from that point of view their saying, "We will make it up in other ways in the economy," but they cannot at one and the same time say that they want increased production and bring in a Bill which will reduce it.
How is the Bill going to reduce it? We on this side of the House agree that we must move away from the Defence Regulations position, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that practically two-thirds of the disposal points in this country are being occupied by the National Coal Board simply because of the exercise of its powers under these Defence Regulations. The Board has taken them under these powers, and does not possess them as a result of having purchased them. It is true that the Board itself owns some disposal points, and some it may have purchased, but certainly two-thirds of the disposal points have been acquired under these Regulations, which will come to an end in their effect by 1960.
What is the position there? Taking the country as a whole, we will find that the National Coal Board, before the end of 1960, which is a little less than two years away, will have to dismantle its


screening plants and vacate its disposal sites, unless it is prepared to pay the prices which the individual owners will demand. What individual owner in his senses is going to demand a commercial price in that position? Is he not going to demand a ransom price, and who can blame him for doing it? It is not just a question of having his land back after it has been cleared. He will have the knowledge that the Coal Board, unless it pays his price, will have to dismantle all this machinery, and what will be the consequence of that? The consequence will be that this coal will have to be lorried to other disposal points in the possession of the Coal Board, which in many cases will be disposal points which ought not to be disposal points at all, namely, the screening plants at the collieries themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will give details of this position, which I have found very close to my own constituency, where the coal which has been obtained by opencast methods has been taken to a colliery to be screened. There are special practical reasons why this coal should be screened by screens specially constructed and prepared to do that job, and it is very important that an assurance should be given, if necessary by means of an amendment of this Bill, that these disposal points which are now vested in the Coal Board should continue to be so vested, because the disposal point is really the keystone of this structure. We cannot have an opencast industry without having disposal points, and, as the Minister knows, one disposal point serves many production points.
Here, there is going to be a loss. There will be a serious effect upon production and a reduction of production by reason of the difficulty in obtaining new sites, because here the position is absolutely clear. I beg the Minister, if necessary, to take the advice of the Law Officers on this point, which is not a Committee point. If he looks at Clause 1 (5) of the Bill, he will find that it provides:
(5) In this Act "the authorised purposes", in relation to an authorisation under this section, means either or both of the following, that is to say, the purposes—

(a) of working coal by opencast operations in pursuance of the authorisation, and

(b) of restoring land affected by the working of coal in pursuance of the authorisation or by operations connected therewith,

and "authorised operations", in relation to such an authorisation, means operations carried out for, or incidental to, the fulfilment of the authorised purposes.
Actually, disposing of coal at central disposal points is not within the terms of that subsection, and, therefore, of course, the National Coal Board is left in the position that it may have to vacate two-thirds of the sites already occupied, dismantle all the plant which has been put up at such expense, suffer a loss in production which will flow from it, and also the increased costs which will also flow, all without giving any benefit to anybody. If by this happening any farmer would benefit or any person who otherwise would be injured would benefit, of course, our attitude on this side of the House would be qualified by that fact, but this is not going to benefit them, and it is clearly at variance with the policy as put forward by the Government if they really want to encourage the production of coal.
On this side of the House, we would certainly be greatly influenced by a declaration on the part of the Government that they wanted disposal sites to remain and that the National Coal Board would be able to obtain disposal sites in the future. I do not suggest that the Board should do it capriciously and arbitrarily, but with all the necessary safeguards affecting other people's interests, such as compensation provisions and other devices for fair play. We have suffered too much in the past from injuries which were not compensated for in various fields for us to have any lack of sympathy with other people who suffer injury, whether it is injury to the person or to his property when something is done for the reasons set out in the Bill.
We are completely in favour of the idea of compensation, and support the Government in that idea. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said in his interjection, that we are legislating now for twenty years ahead. Let us make up our minds that that being so we must have an efficient opencast industry or we must kill it. We cannot have it both ways. Nothing but misery and economic difficulty will be caused if we try to keep on an opencast industry and, at the same


time, damn it with faint praise and discourage people from investing in it and increasing its production.
It is all very well to say that machines can be used in other places. If a private contractor is to sink half a million pounds in modern machinery for the purpose of providing coal for this country and is doing that to increase production and employs a number of workers, we should not say in this House, "If we do it this way you can find another use for that machine and other employment for those workers." We must say to the private contractor, "This is for the good of the economy and you are to be encouraged to do it." We must say to the National Coal Board, "You are to be encouraged to help in every possible way and not to be hamstrung by the provisions of the Bill."
Things could go badly wrong under the Bill; that is to say, there could be lots of individual owners who exercised their full rights at the point where, under Clause 1, authorisation has to be given by the Minister and objection can be made by any person with an interest in the property. An objector does not have to give any reason. He can object quite capriciously. The local authorities in the area may be completely in favour of the authorisation, but one person can stand out, without giving any reason at all, and a local inquiry can be forced. The Minister is not obliged to insist upon that local inquiry running concurrently with a compulsory rights order. It is possible for a local inquiry under the authorisation procedure and one under a compulsory rights order to run consecutively. There is consequently bound to be a great increase in the time from the date when the coal has been discovered to the time when it is being worked.
I have done my best by inquiry to find out how long it takes under the present procedure. I find the answer to be about four or five months. I put it to the Minister that it might easily, under the Bill, take another twelve months to get to the point of production. That is all very well, if the Government do not want opencast coal or want a rundown in the opencast coal programme. If they want increased production of coal and they approve of this method of getting it, they must streamline the Bill to facilitate progress in these fields. They must make it easy for the parties to come to agreement.

The parties should be encouraged to come to agreement so that the Bill will run as a sort of background to friendly negotiation between interested parties. That is the object that we have in mind and will have in mind in Committee. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal particularly with the very difficult question of disposal points.

Mr. Nabarro: Until the advent of the Bill, the work of opencast mining was under Defence Regulations and the owner or occupier of a property that was to be worked for opencast mining had no right of objection at all. Requisition of the, land was purely arbitrary under the: Defence Regulations. Under the Bill, the owner or occupier has a right of objection. Surely that restoration of the freedom and liberty of the subject is worth a few months' delay?

Mr. Williams: There is no need for there to be any issue between the hon. Member for Kidderminster and myself on this matter. I am talking about something which is rather different from the point that the hon. Gentleman has referred to. Since there is an economic necessity, as put before us by Her Majesty's Government, for the production of coal by these methods, there is a case for saying that a way should not be thrown open for capricious objection which will cause endless delay without any foundation of objection at all. This matter cannot affect the liberty of the subject. In a case where all the parties were agreed, somebody who had some limited right over the property could have it looked at by the Minister so that, in an appropriate case, the Minister could decide whether or not there was a prima facie case. If there was, the Minister could let the objection go forward, with the full rights of objection.
Let not the Minister be put in a position in which the whole matter can be delayed merely by a bloody-minded crank who is not concerned with the rights of the case at all. Let the hon. Member for Kidderminster bear in mind that the production figures have been achieved by discussion and reasonable behaviour on, the part of people who have had at their-backs the sort of power which could have enabled them to behave in a beastly way if they had wanted to; but they did not. They have done it in a decent way and in relation to compensation, as in other fields.
I hope that we shall not get into the position of arguing about issues when we are not at issue at all. I would remind the hon. Member for Kidderminster that the Minister and I have been engaged in this sort of legislation for a considerable time. We have spent many months on it, and have done it, I am glad to say, on the most friendly and co-operative basis. There is no reason why we should not do so at the present time. I will not be put in the position, by any diarrhœa of words on the part of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, of appearing to be less concerned with the liberty of the subject than he is.

Mr. Nabarro: But the hon. Member is.

Mr. Williams: I simply ask that this matter be dealt with in a responsible way and not influenced by the rather foolish interruptions that the hon. Member for Kidderminster has made.

Mr. Maudling: I appreciate the point of view of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) when he talks about cranks, but it is rather difficult to decide in an Act of Parliament whether some objectors are cranks and others are responsible people. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view that the principle is very big and important.

Mr. Williams: All I am asking the Minister to do is to be consistent and to do in regard to authorisation orders what he does under compulsory rights orders. He has the right to do it under the compulsory rights order procedure. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster would say that that is an intrusion on the liberty of the subject. It would be a perfectly reasonable administrative arrangement under the same Bill. It is simply a question of saying that the principle which the right hon. Gentleman accepts in relation to compulsory rights orders should be accepted in relation to the authorisation order. The point is no bigger than that.
Let me extend to the Minister my sympathy—I am not being cynical when I say this—at his having to come to the House with such an extremely complicated Measure.
The Bill is rather more complicated and certainly more lengthy than the Electricity Bill and the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill put together. Therefore, it seems that

a very heavy task lies ahead in Committee where the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House will be to try by all the constructive means at our disposal to make it a better Bill. The Minister will find that there will be no lack of co-operation. The hon. Member for Kidderminster, who is so ready with his interruptions, will, I hope, be on that Committee to give us the benefit of his vast experience and help us to come to conclusions on these complicated subjects.
The Minister is in a difficulty with regard to compensation for loss of profits. In relation to such compensation, the right hon. Gentleman knows the view of hon. Members on this side of the House because we have put it forward on previous occasions. This is a question of consequential loss of profits following upon opencast mining operations. All the arguments which can be used to justify this principle in this Bill were used from this side of the House on the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill and were rejected by the Minister in the most cogent, powerful, far-reaching refutations of our submissions which I have ever heard.
It follows, therefore, that at a certain stage in Committee when we come to deal with this principle the Minister will have to ask us to accept our own arguments used on that other Bill, since this is an identical principle. With all my heart I say that we support the idea that there should be compensation for loss of profits. It is a last-minute repentance on the part of the Minister, perhaps due to the political climate, because, much as we like him as a person, we all realise that he will not be in his present position very much longer.
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as the compensation principle is concerned, I should have thought that the right way to approach that matter would be to concentrate on speed and simplicity whilst providing justice at the same time. A speedier method than that proposed in the Bill is applied now. The complaint is not about the method applied at present, but about the amounts paid. It is much better to deal with the matter in that way than in the way provided in the Bill.

Mr. Maudling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I must take him up on the point about our earlier discussion. I would not dissent from his


assessment of the value of the argument put forward on behalf of the Government, but there is a great difference under this Bill. When we are saying what the National Coal Board must pay by way of compensation when taking over land for opencast mining we are not imposing upon the Board, as was done under the earlier Bill, the obligation to pay for a second time compensation which in many cases it had already paid under the then existing circumstances.

Mr. Williams: We shall be left with the anomaly that in one and the same village there will be a person who has suffered loss of profit as a result of mining subsidence who will get nothing whatever in respect of this loss and, side by side with him, a person who has suffered loss of profits because of opencast mining who will be provided for. That is an anomaly created by the Government. In Committee, the Minister will have the painful embarrassment of being obliged to put forward our arguments and asking us to accept them. However, that is a difficulty into which he will have been placed by the Government.
Let us concentrate upon the idea of providing the compensation quickly and well because under the complex provisions suggested in the Bill what we are really giving to the injured person is the right to demand a scrutiny of books of account with long drawn-out investigations and disputes. Although I defer to the Lands Tribunal in agricultural matters, in which it can do a splendid Jon, I have still to be convinced that the Tribunal can deal with a financial dispute. Farmers are not financiers or accountants and will be at a disadvantage in dealing with the matter. Therefore, we must make the assessment of compensation simpler and turn it into real compensation without any disputation and reference to books of accounts.
To summarise what I have said so far, I think that, firstly, the Bill as at present drafted will most emphatically result in a loss of coal production, that it may even result in a substantial loss of production, particularly if my point about disposal points is not fully covered by the Government; secondly, that it will certainly lead to great doubt on the part of those who are investing large sums of money in the provision of up-to-date machinery for opencast mining; thirdly,

that although we can say with the hon. Member for Kidderminster that we are legislating for twenty years ahead, that, of course, is on the assumption that the day this Measure comes to an end nearly ten years hence a compulsory rights order will then be drawn ten years further ahead. That can happen, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster has his debating point. But we know, in fact, that it will not happen like that at all. What will happen is that when the Act has been in operation for four or five years there will he a run-down in opencast production followed by a substantial run-down because nobody will then be interesed in financing developments even though they have earlier had the benefit of opencast coal.
I ask the Minister to take another look at the principles and to make the Bill a gentler Measure more in line with National Coal Board policy. I say to the Minister, "Do not override the Board as you have apparently done here. Do not give divided counsel and create confusion of thought asking at the one time for increased production and at the same time bringing in a Measure which is going to result in reduced production."
Despite the fact that I have had to speak at length and forcefully on certain points, I assure the Minister that I will give the fullest support I can in the masses of Amendments which lie ahead in Committee. All I would say is that from my previous experience I anticipate that, however many Amendments I put on the Order Paper, the right hon. Gentleman will probably match them in number if not in substance.

5.27 p.m.

Sir Albert Braithwaite: It seems a very long time ago since the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) started opencast mining in this country. It was due to his consideration and foresight that we were able in a national emergency in war-time to get moving in the matter, and a lot of things have happened since then.
I must declare my interest in the matter because I have operated in this direction ever since those earlier Measures were introduced. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has many times invalidated our friendship on the basis of opencast coal mining. In everything that I have tried to do in the matter I have


been actuated only by the national interest and the real desire of the nation to produce more fuel for its needs.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General for bringing in the Bill because, for the first time, it puts the industry on a more or less statutory basis. Up to now we have operated under the Defence Regulations, and I must say that it has been very difficult for those in charge in the National Coal Board and those on the National Opencast Executive to carry on their work under the arrangements which they had to make. They have now an amount of coal proved of over 70 million tons which is available to the nation. But of this amount of coal very little is available because of the long procedure in getting possession of the land and starting work on it.
I ask the Government quite frankly what are their real intentions about opencast coal mining. The National Coal Board says that we should get the maximum production possible. Are the Government prepared to go out for maximum production? I believe, in view of our national financial obligations and our present parlous position in foreign exchanges, that it is vital for us to get every ounce of coal we can. Atomic energy may be in the offing, but it is not here yet. Our balance of payments in Europe was always maintained on the export of coal. We have a lot of people in the mines who are coming along very nicely and who are going to create possibilities for the production of coal.
I am not going to deny the work done by the miners, but this is something which helps them. In 1956, while the National Coal Board lost £8 million producing 200 million tons of coal, the opencast division of the Coal Board made £8 million for the nation on the production of 13 million tons of coal. Those figures must show everyone in this House the vital necessity of going on with the programme on a substantial basis.

Mr. Rupert Speir: What does my hon. Friend mean by "a substantial basis"? Is he suggesting that amenity interests and agricultural interests should be disregarded?

Sir A. Braithwaite: Certainly not. I am as much interested in the amenities

of the countryside as anyone in this House. In fact, I farm many thousands of acres myself and have a large amount of land. Therefore, I can appreciate the views of people concerned, but, after all, the guts of this country are in the coal industry. If we want industrial prosperity we cannot neglect these indigenous resources. The fact that we are spending vast sums of money in buying American coal is disgraceful and does not allow any of us to be complacent.
I think it vital to recite some of the things which have happened. Since the inauguration of this scheme we have taken up 100,000 acres out of 48 million acres of agricultural land, and 60,000 acres are now held by the National Coal Board for opencast operations. Of that land, 28,000 acres are being rehabilitated for farming and 32,000 acres are being actively operated. That does not seem to be a substantial amount to cause all the disturbance there has been about this operation for so many years, but it means a great deal, not only to the coal mining industry, but to the whole future of this island.
This industry has saved the country £100 million a year ever since the war. We have been told about all kinds of difficulties in financial operations, but can we afford to ignore sums of that magnitude? I am told that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned over £50 million. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who told you that?"] This sum is £100 million per annum, not for one year, but for seventeen years. If there had been no opencast mining we should have had no export of coal from this country since the war. It is obvious that this is something we have to do. No one likes to see the great holes which are made in the ground, but they do not do so much damage as do many gravel pits and pit heaps, which take up, not the same area, but ten times the area used for these opencast operations.
In addition, 34 million tons of this coal has been large lump coal, of which we are very short and which cannot be obtained under modern deep mining methods. That is why we have to buy coal, in order to supply the lump coal required by the domestic market. I suggest that these considerations are well worth the study of every one of us.

Mr. Albert Roberts: At the same time, 10 million tons of small coal was produced which cannot be sold.

Sir A. Braithwaite: I have not heard of very much small coal which cannot be sold. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are plenty of outlets for that. When we compare the large lump coal which comes from these operations with that obtained by ordinary mining, the percentage looks silly.
I pay tribute to those who have been operating this system. The technique has greatly improved. The restoration is very much better than it has ever been before, and I am informed by the heads of the agricultural industry that the yield from this land is quite good in some areas. I am sure that the technique now employed is really satisfactory and something of which we can be proud. When we see the operations which are going on in America and compare them with what is being done in this country we can be very gratified. The technique employed, and the fact that we now go to greater depths, reflects the greatest possible credit on those responsible. Mr. Casey and Mr. Baker, who have operated this scheme for the last seven or eight years, have done a service to the country which all should appreciate. The whole set-up of the opencast mining operations of the National Coal Board reflects credit on a State undertaking of this kind.
I am pleased that the provisions for compensation, for the first time, have been put on a statutory basis. Prolonged arguments will now disappear, but I have some fear that this Bill may retard and restrict production this year because we cannot change from one system to another without some delay. I do not think the nation can afford to brook delay in this connection at present. I hope that any methods which we can suggest in Committee to speed up the change-over will be considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has proclaimed to the House that he is a large-scale farmer and landowner. Supposing the National Coal Board wanted to requisition part of his land and he objected strongly, would he not favour a system of public inquiry? If there were a public inquiry, would that not lead to the delay to which he

referred? Is not that delay legitimate in such circumstances?

Sir A. Braithwaite: If the Coal Board operated on my land I should expect a fair price, but I certainly would not stand against the national interest in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Nabarro: That is not the question. Does my hon. Friend favour the democratic process of a public inquiry by which an objector may state his case? If he does, he would have to put up with the delay.

Sir A. Braithwaite: Let us see if we can speed up the public inquiry if that is the case. Let us get these public inquiries operating more quickly, as frequent delays dishearten people.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) spoke about the period of transition. I am in agreement with him. I do not think we should set a definite statutory period. If the scheme needs to be closed earlier and sufficient coal is coming from deep mining, that would alter the situation, but we cannot foresee that happening for a very long time. I do not think a statutory period should be set. If we go to the seventh year, from where are we to get the people who have sufficient confidence to put up the vast capital sums necessary for this operation?
This is a mechanical operation. Every man engaged in this industry—and it is an industry now—produces 1,200 tons of coal a year compared with 300 tons produced by each miner in deep-mined production. It is quite substantial, but the bulk of the work is done with heavy machinery. If there were no limitation on the time for this operation, these machines would be built in England, but at the moment we have to pay large sums of money in dollars to import them from America. I believe that if some security were given under this Measure, the big machines would be built in this country by the machine makers and we should not have to import them. It is essential to go in for the largest machines we can get to make this operation economic.
I want to thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill and for putting the industry on a statutory basis for the first time. May I also welcome the new Parliamentary Secretary to his post; his


financial acumen in this connection will be very valuable to the coal mining industry. We appreciate the logic of his arguments and the sound commonsense which he will bring to this great industry. It is an industry which needs all the help and all the brains we can possibly put into it, because with the success of this industry we shall get out of our difficulties. We could easily export £100 million of coal to Europe today if we could produce it, and that would make all the difference to our balance of payments. It can be done if we apply our minds to introducing that urgency which is so vital.
I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that opencast coal mining will make a substantially increased contribution to the country and will make its effect felt throughout our economy.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: While I do not agree with one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite), I welcome his reference to the deep-mined coal industry. It refreshed me considerably when I heard him say that this industry was coming along very nicely. We had never heard that before from hon. Members opposite, either in the House or in their public speeches. I do not want to create a controversial atmosphere, but I must say that that reference was very refreshing. May I congratulate the hon. Member on his honesty in stating that the deep-mined coal industry is coming along very nicely? We agree about that.
The hon. Member has recently returned from America. I have had some experience in my constituency of opencast mining and the damage and the ravages which result from it. When I met the hon. Member walking along the corridors in the House I used to say, "Here comes the man who has given me more headaches and heartaches than any other hon. Member." I put the responsibility on him.
It is extremely difficult to disagree with the Paymaster-General, who introduced the Bill. His pleasantry is very charming. I said to myself, "By the way in which he delivers his speeches from the Box he could almost charm ducks off a pond." Nevertheless, I must make some reserva-

tions, because although I agree with the manner in which he introduced the Bill, I must make some comments in the short time at my disposal, not altogether about what the Bill omits, but about what the Bill contains.
While I have been sitting here I have been thinking of the debate we had on 19th July, 1950, when a few hours of a Supply Day were allocated to the discussion of opencast mining. I well remember how we were chided by an hon. Member of the party opposite who is now in another place. He said that opencast mining ought to be brought to an end. He said that we had had it long enough, it had despoiled our countryside, people had suffered and it was about time that the Government of the day—we were then the Government of the day—brought it to an end. The same party, now in office, say, "We will promote a Measure to lengthen the working of opencast mining by ten years."

Dr. Barnett Stross: Possibly twenty years.

Mr. Brown: Under the Defence Regulations it was six years. The Bill carries on the period for ten years, and it has been hinted that it may be even longer.
I have been reading the Report of the debate which we held in 1950. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will forgive me if I say that he tried to get out of the difficulty by giving an assurance that opencast mining would taper off and would have disappeared altogether by the end of 1953. At least the sensible hon. Members among us know why that statement was made. It was made because of certain circumstances which we were anticipating. We expected that there would be a considerable and rapid improvement in the output of deep-mined coal. This is what my right hon. Friend said:
What the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee really wanted to know was what was the opencast programme.
That was a specific and definite question which arose from many speeches made by hon. Members opposite. My right hon. Friend continued:
In January of this year we announced that we wanted 45 million tons by 1953. The output we are planning is as follows: 1950, 13 million tons; 1951, 12 million tons; 1952, 11 million tons: 1953, 8 to 9 million tons, and then the contracts will tail off as this particular programme finishes.


He was then questioned by the right hon. Gentleman leading the Opposition at that time, who asked:
And then will it all end?
My right hon. Friend replied:
It will tail off after 1953. It is not proposed to go on with any extension after that time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2332–2333.]
I am not complaining about that statement made by my right hon. Friend. What I am complaining about is that the Government in 1950–51 were trying to deal with this situation and were meeting with vigorous opposition from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. The situation now is completely the reverse. They are introducing a Bill to extend opencast coal mining operations for ten years.
Three main reasons were given for the continuation of opencast mining. It was said to be necessary, first, for the maintenance of our coal supplies, so essential to our national economy; secondly, in order to do away with the need to import coal from abroad, and to save dollars—a very desirable thing; third, to build up our stocks to meet any emergency that might arise. Those were the three main reasons given—I shall not mention the others.
The position today is that our stocks of coal have considerably increased. Our output in deep-mined coal for the year ending 28th December, 1957, reached the magnificent total of 210,054,700 tons—a considerable increase in the output of that type of coal since opencast mining began in 1942. Then we have the stocks of coal that are now on hand to meet any national emergency.
Our stock in hand in 1941 was 22,095,000 tons. Today, the figure is considerably higher. I therefore do not see that the strength of the reasons given in 1950 applies today. We have increased our output of deep-mined coal from 203 million in 1942 to the present figure of 210 million, while our stocks, and our output of opencast coal, have also been increasing. We are in a much better position today than we were in 1950.
I agree that there has been—and I hope that it will continue for a few years yet—a great deal of capital invested in the deep-mined coal industry, which has been starved for so many years. In five, six, seven, eight, or even ten years' time

we should be getting some good returns for the capital invested in the deep-mined coal industry, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary—whom I congratulate upon his appointment—the following question.
If, in the next few years we have a surplus of deep-mined coal, will opencast coal production continue, or will it come to a full stop? I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, West that it would be unwise to venture too far in capital investment in opencast coal production unless we are assured that the large quantities of machinery in which we invest will be used and will not lie idle.
There is a feeling, although I should not like to think that it was put forward seriously, that this Bill has been brought forward simply to provide for the continuance of work for three of the large contractors. I hope that that idea will not go forward, but that is the feeling, born from rumours that have been spread about. I do not attach very much importance to rumours, but there is that feelings.
Here, I must mention names. It is said that this Bill has been drafted in order to give work to McAlpine's, to Sir Lindsay Parkinson's and to Wimpey's. When statements like that are made, the people making them should sustain them—

Mr. Nabarro: Who made them?

Mr. Brown: We hear them in the mining districts.

Mr. Nabarro: Who made them?

Mr. Brown: We hear them in the mining districts, but I wish to give way to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir).

Mr. Speir: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Ince for giving way. I entirely agree with what he is saying. These rumours are circulating in the mining districts. I have heard them myself. But would he not agree—I am sure that he would—that it would be far better if these large machine's were used for building the country's very-much-needed trunk roads?

Mr. Nabarro: Before he replies, perhaps the hon. Member for Ince will allow me to say that the House of Commons


is not very interested in rumours. The hon. Gentleman is saying that statements are being made to the effect that three large-scale civil engineering contractors are being kept in work deliberately by these opencast contracts. Will he not substantiate those statements and say where they came from?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Hexham has just said that he has heard the same thing. It is extremely difficult to find out where rumours begin, but I am told—and I have to listen—that it is for that reason that this Bill has been brought forward—

Sir A. Braithwaite: Perhaps I may say that I know each of the companies mentioned by the hon. Member for Ince—I am a director of one of them—and there is no foundation of any kind to the rumour he has mentioned.

Mr. Brown: I am very glad to hear it denied by a gentleman of authority. I do not like to have to listen to such rumours as that. It is said that if a rumour is repeated often enough it becomes the truth, but that is not the case here, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to give a straight denial to these rumours.
I want now to deal with the Bill as it affects my constituency. After all, to a very large degree I am here to voice the views of the people in the division of Ince, where I have lived since I was born, and which I have had the honour to represent for fifteen years. That part of the country was one of the first to be invaded by the opencast people, and we still have the opencast workings. It is true that we have had very many promises given to us that it is to come to an end—"Be patient, be patriotic, be tolerant, and in a few months' or a few years' time all this will have come to an end." That is what we have been told, but what do I find?
I regret to find that this Bill seeks to give powers to the N.C.B. to go on and on. I am beginning to believe that, like Tennyson's brook, it will go on for ever, although I hope that it will not. In the mining areas in my division the words of the poet have lost their meaning. We have none of "…England's green and pleasant Land" in my constituency. The

opencast workings have seen to that, and, before that, the deep-mine coal owners of the past put pit heaps on it and caused subsidences which have rendered that land derelict and devastated. So we have very few of those pasture lands, or green and pleasant lands, to which we are as much entitled as are other parts of the country.
Recently, there was a very important meeting of the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers' Union held in Preston, which was attended by many small farmers. Amongst the many questions they discussed was the continuation of opencast mining and its effect upon their farms. Eventually, all that could be said to meet the complaints of delegates attending that meeting, was, "We can do very little as a Farmers' Union. The only thing you can do is to write to your M.P. about it." That is the obvious way out when people are in a difficulty and—my word!—they have written to their M.P. about it, and sent deputations to me, too.
The Bill seeks to increase the permitted period under the Defence Regulations, about which we have already heard, from six years to ten. This, in itself, is very disturbing, especially in its effect upon low-acreage farms, of which there are many in the north-west industrial area. The hon. Member for Harrow, West has spoken of what is done in the vast spaces of America and Canada, where farms of 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 acres are to be found. For the small farmer, farming 100 or 114 or 200 acres, the taking of 80, 90 or 100 acres makes a very serious inroad into his livelihood. There is, therefore, no comparison between the farms of America and the small farms of this country.
I described the Bill as a new compulsory rights order. That is what it comes to. It gives power to the National Coal Board to operate opencast mining, without any peace-time precedent. I have searched the records of legislation in the House and I have failed to find anything like it. There is nothing in the legislative enactments of this country which bears any relation at all to the Measure now under discussion. This is very disturbing, to say the least.
In the light of the experience gained in my constituency during the last fourteen years, I take very strong objection


to many Clauses in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister responsible for it will manifest the same reasonable attitude towards this side of the House as he manifested when we were discussing the Mining Subsidence Bill. On that occasion, he was very tolerant and accommodating. As a result of his tolerance and accommodation, we were able to present to the House on Third Reading a much better Bill on mining subsidence than would have been the case without our help.
I therefore plead with the Minister not to adopt a stupid attitude, as some Ministers do when discussing Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. It is no good beating about the bush. Some Ministers adopt a stupid attitude, while others are tolerant and accommodating. The tolerant and accommodating Minister always gets the best results, and the stupid man does not get anywhere at all. I am a Lancastrian, and I speak straight from the shoulder. We have a saying in Lancashire,
Speak your mind, yet be kind;
Give good advice, yet be nice.
We shall be very nice to the Minister if he gives us all our own way, within reason.
The Ministry has inserted what are called safeguards. I welcome those safeguards, but what disturbs me is this. Who are the people to apply these safeguards? Are they to be representatives of the Coal Board, of the Minister, of the Mineworkers' Union? Somebody must apply them, and they will have to be applied in a reasonable and tolerant manner. We have had considerable experience in meeting officers of the Board and we have found that, in any question of the application of safeguards, their only concern is the production of opencast coal. It is a very serious thing when an officer of the Coal Board, an officer of the Ministry, or the Minister himself, has before his mind, transcending all the arguments advanced by the people affected, the production of coal. He must do something else. He must take into consideration the effect of coal workings and remember why the safeguards were inserted in the Bill. I hope that we shall, during the Committee stage, have some information from the Minister on the point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth mentioned the human problem. There is nothing in the Bill about that. There is, of course, a compensation Clause, but there is nothing in the Bill which refers to the damage done to a farmer's homestead, to the inconvenience the farmer's wife and family go through. As a matter of fact, on one farm in my constituency the workings came right to the doorstep. My right hon. Friend mentioned that case.
The result was that the house had to be pulled down and they built another farther afield in the country. That sort of thing ought not to take place. A bit of common sense should have been applied. Consideration ought to be given to a farmer's family living where their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers before them have lived. Yet opencast mining operations are allowed to make such inroads upon a farmer's land that his house has to be pulled down.
Farmers in my division have had to sell their stock. There is no reference to compensation for that. When a man sells his stock it is almost like selling his lifeblood. The hon. Member for Harrow, West, has some very valuable cows on his farm. He cannot have opencast working there because there are no coal measures in that district, but he has a very valuable heard of cattle. He would not like to part with them, except when they are ready for killing. They become part of the family, and there is a sentimental value about them. I know that we cannot approach these things purely on grounds of sentiment, but there is that very deep feeling whatever we say. When land is taken for opencast purposes, and a farmer has to dispose of his stock, it is a heartbreaking experience for him and his family. Yet many of them have had to do it.
When the land is restored and the process of restocking is embarked upon, officers of the Coal Board—I say it with all respect to them—seem possessed of the idea that a stock of cattle can be rebuilt by return of post. It cannot be done like that. These things require years of hard work, expenditure, and experience; they require all the knowledge and skill of the farmer and his herdsmen. Once a farmer's stock is disposed of for the sake of opencast mining, it takes a number of years to rebuild it. Again, I


make the plea that there should be a different approach to the payment of compensation for loss of stock.
There are in my constituency, in one town—Ashton-in-Makerfield—29 farms. Every one of them, without exception, has been subjected to opencast mining. On the 7th of this month, I had a letter which informed me that the Opencast Branch of the Coal Board is coming on to the Smithy Wood site, on which there are five farms. Three of them have been visited two, three or four times. That is my reason for putting to the Minister the point about compensation for the continual visitations of the Opencast Branch.
I make this plea to the Parliamentary Secretary and I hope that it will be conveyed to the right quarters. Does he not think that these people have had enough? Does he not think that when five small farms have had these constant and continuous visitations of opencast mining since 1944, an armistice ought to be declared? Surely, after all these years of coming and taking the coal and upsetting everything, it is time to call a halt on the Smith Wood site. That is my plea on their behalf.
I have said a lot in this House about restoration and I shall continue to say it. I am the first to admit that since we raised the question, many years ago, there has been a considerable improvement. A different technique is adopted, different things have been done and suggestions have been considered. Way back in 1944 or 1946 suggestions would not have been accepted. Ours was to do and die and not to ask the reasons why, and no notice was taken. Now, such is the force of circumstances that notice must be taken of the ordinary man and the ordinary farmer. Considerations and suggestions have now been applied and the restoration of land is much better than it was, say, ten years ago.
I welcome that, because the restoration of agricultural land, particularly in the mining areas, is very welcome. It is desirable that it should be done quickly, effectively and properly so that the farmer may continue along his journey as one who is responsible for the production of food for the nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) referred to disposal points. There is nothing in the Bill

about disposal points on opencast sites. Such sites are very desirable, and I shall explain why. At present, coal which is produced on an opencast site is generally conveyed to the nearest colliery, where it is screened. That ought not to be. The Coal Board should not mix the opencast coal with the deep-mined coals, because there is such a vast difference between the two in cleanliness and in calorific value. When the two are mixed, the opencast coal spoils the deep-mined coal. It is essential, therefore, that those responsible for opencast mining should ensure that there are disposal points where opencast coal is produced and that it should not be mixed with the deep-mined coals.
That is what is causing the complaints. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and rightly so, has frequently had something to say about the excessive amount of foreign substances, stone and slate, which are found in coal. That is one of the reasons for it. Therefore, we shall have to consider the installation of disposal points and the erection of screening plants. We shall have to consider something approaching what is done for deep-mined coal if we are to get any satisfaction from opencast mining.
There is in the country, and particularly in the coalfields, a large acreage of under-productive land, due not altogether to opencast mining, but also to deep mining. The deep mining of coal has left dereliction and devastation in its trail. Pit heaps, marshes, water and flashes of water are all part of our inheritance from deep mining in the past.
I suggest that without a disproportionate expenditure of money, steps should now be taken to restore infertile land to fertility. If that is done, it will be a national gain. The Coal Board, in its opencast operations, should see that a fund is created for the specific purpose of supervising and helping the restoration of this derelict land, of which we have several thousands of acres, to useful production. If that was done, it would be a paying proposition. It would get results and, what is more important, it would give a great deal of contentment to the people who have long lived in these areas.
I have often asked why we should have so much sorrow and pain around us. Why


should our people live in these conditions when there should be praise and victory? That praise and victory can be brought about only if the Government, the Coal Board and all concerned set their minds to do that which is right for the people who have done so much for the nation in the production of coal.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I follow the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), in the gloomy view which he took about the continuation of opencast mining, because in north-east Lancashire, as in south-west Lancashire, we have small farms which have undoubtedly suffered a great deal more from opencast mining than the areas where the farms are larger.
I do not share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) and of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) for the continuation of opencast mining and I am bound to say that it was only the powerful arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, in introducing the Bill which give me any feeling, and that only with a sigh, that I suppose we must support this wretched operation for a good many more years.
However, there are provisions in the Bill which are welcome, particularly the provision to end the war-time regulations under which the opencast operation is carried on at present, and those which I think most hon. Members of this House feel express the modern attitude towards compulsory acquisition, especially having better rights of appeal, and so on, which were discussed in the Franks Report originally and then in this House. I turn to one or two matters on which I am critical of the Bill as drafted. Some of them are of sufficient breadth to be brought up now on Second Reading, although there are others, and these, too, will have to be developed in detail in Committee.
I am sorry to see from Clause 2 that the Minister of Power has the sole responsibility for initiating opencast mining operations—the sole constitutional responsibility. My right hon. Friend gave what I must call the conventional arguments for this provision when he said that it is not the constitutional practice for Acts of Parliament to lay down that one Minister should consult another. He

added, in a general sort of way—and I think that these were his exact words—that "There will be consultations, of course, with my colleagues."
A general undertaking like that is not a satisfactory substitute for an undertaking put into an Act, and I fail to see why there is not expressed in the Bill an obligation on the Minister at least to consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has the responsibility for the implementation of the Town and Country Planning Acts, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who obviously is deeply concerned. I should ideally prefer the appeal procedure to be operated by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as an impartial outsider, as it were, in what may be difficult cases, if they are appealed but at least we should have written down an obligation for consultation.
The next and equally important matter about which I feel critical of the Bill is one raised by the hon. Member for Wigan, and I had a good deal of sympathy with him when he asked that the compensation proposals should be simplified. The present compensation procedure is, in brief, that there is a rental compensation upon requisition of the site. It is one which favours the small farm whose rental value is under £100 a year, or whose size is less than 50 acres. I shall not now go into the full details, because they can be discussed in Committee, but there is compensation based on a diminution in the capital value as a terminal compensation upon derequisition. Finally, there is a rehabilitation grant three-fifths of which goes to the owner and two-fifths to the tenant.
Certainly, in the area round Burnley, which I know well, and where we have so much opencast milling, the three-years' rental to the landowner is in the overwhelming number of cases—I have heard of no exception to this—being spent on rehabilitating the farm, improving the water supply, putting in additional drainage so that the farm can have as good drainage as possible instead of the minimum required on rehabilitation, and on rebuilding walls, and so on, as well as upon any contingencies that arise.
It is a system which has worked for twenty years, though, as the hon. Member for Wigan said, the rates have been improved in the last six months. It seems


to me fair to both landowners and tenants; the land agents and others who advise them fully understand its workings, and so do the farmers. I cannot think what the reason can be for such a wide departure from it as is proposed in the Bill, unless it be an excess of logic on the part of the legal and financial sections of the Ministry of Power, who feel that basing it on the loss of profit in some way or other is more logical than basing it on a rental value.
Yet in the proposals in Clauses 15, 16, 17 and 19 there are two striking points. The first is that there are as many assumptions made in trying to base compensation on profits as in basing compensation on rental value. The second is that in practical administration the proposal to compensate on the basis of loss of profits raises very practical difficulties which I am most afraid will bear unfairly, certainly upon the small farmers whom I know so well.
For example, if some fields are taken from a farm, how will it be possible, except on a very arbitrary basis, to allocate to those fields the loss of profit as a proportion of the loss of profit on the farm as a whole. It is often difficult to work out accurate figures for these small farms to satisfy the Inland Revenue—figures for a farm as a whole. To try to do it for perhaps five acres out of 40, or for seven and a half acres, will certainly introduce an element of arbitrariness just as marked as it is in the present procedure.
The matter is complicated, too, by the fact that in paragraph 7 of the Fifth Schedule there is a proposal to offset against the loss of profit the money which could be earned in alternative ways. What we are very much afraid of in our area, where the farms are all around industrial towns, is that those who are responsible for administering the Measure, if it passes in its present form, will say to a farmer. "You can go to work in a factory or a mill and make much more money than you can as a farmer."
I thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) put the powerful argument against that, that those farmers who are having their farms or parts of them taken away from them for opencast working wish to continue as farmers

and do not want to work in factories. The proposal in the form in which it is in paragraph 7 of the Fifth Schedule certainly looks to them and to me as though there is an effort to induce them to go away from their farms and to take work in factories.
Another matter worth mentioning now on Second Reading is that under the present arrangements the rehabilitation compensation is paid when a place is derequisitioned. There is no mention of that rehabilitation rate, and yet it has been valuable in the past. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will tell us that in Committee he will look sympathetically at proposals which we are prepared to put forward to make the rehabilitation arrangements much more favourable than they are in the Bill as it is. I should also like to make somewhat the same point about proposals for compensation for timber felled. At present, compensation is paid when the timber is felled and it is welcome money at a time of great disturbance on a farm, but under the Bill compensation will have to wait for ten years.
I hope that, having indicated my acceptance of the Bill on Second Reading, I shall be shown in the winding-up speech that Ministers have not closed their minds to drastic amendment in Committee of the compensation Clauses as drafted. They are very far from being satisfactory, certainly for small farmers in difficult farming areas.

6.31 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: It will have been noticed that it has been quite customary in the debate for hon. Members to rise and say that in great measure they have agreed with what had been said by an hon. Member opposite who had just sat down. I feel that I am no exception to the rule, particularly with reference to the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), when he spoke about Clause 2. He was right to suggest that we have no evidence so far in the history of the Ministry of Power that that Ministry is skilled and adept in matters of amenity.
The hon. Member rightly suggested that questions of amenity belong to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They are within the purview of


that Ministry. It is accustomed to it and should be consulted. I agree entirely with the hon. Member that a promise of consultation with colleagues is not enough, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a promise, if possible now, that provision for consultation will be written into Clause 2.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there are precedents for this type of consultation and joint discussion with Ministers on planning matters. There is a precedent in Section 35 and the Fifth Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in connection with the granting of planning permission for the use of the operational land of statutory undertakings. If we have a precedent of that kind there is no reason why it should not be written into Clause 2 of the Bill. It would please the House and it would give some real guarantee that less damage would be done to amenities than might otherwise be done. I believe that such a step would find support from all parts of the House.
We absolutely accept without complaint that the main purpose of the Bill is correct and that we require a statutory basis for opencast coal production rather than the Defence Regulation under which the operations have been carried out up to now. I note, however, that some local authorities, and the Association of Municipal Corporations, are nervous about some of the implications of the Bill. They certainly wonder, as so many of us wonder, whether a period of ten years is needed.
This period, of course, is not merely one of ten years. The reference to ten years in Clause 3 (1) is to the time-limit within which the Coal Board can make application. After the application is made, the power to work the land is for a farther ten years. Therefore, in the ninth year any order given by the Minister will have a further ten years to run. That makes the period nineteen years as from today; and if application were made on the last day of the tenth year we know that a little over twenty years from now opencast coal mining would be still possible.
I wonder how much of our power will be derived from coal in those days and how much from other sources, including the new ones to which we look forward with such expectation and hope. I

wonder whether we should pin ourselves down in legislation to powers of this kind and whether we should not assume that it is a matter of great urgency to rid ourselves altogether from an operation which is ugly and which none of us likes, although, like other hon. Members, I absolutely accept that if we are satisfied that the operation is essential in the country's interests we must continue with it.
In putting this point I am not speaking only for myself. I am sure that it is a point which has been put in consultation by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard it more than once, in particular from that body. We should be greatly obliged if the hon. Gentleman would give us his views on whether our stocks are not rather large now, whether we are finding difficulty in stockpiling and whether distribution is not presenting some difficulties. We should be relieved if we heard from him that there are no such difficulties. Perhaps he will tell us the exact position.
The town clerk of Stoke-on-Trent, in which my constituency lies, has raised with me this important point of consultation. The Parliamentary Secretary will have noted that the procedure under Clause I and the First Schedule is quite formal. It is quite good as far as it goes. I am sure that no one can complain of it. Twenty-eight days' notice must be given. Local authorities, and owners and occupiers, are all to be notified if they are interested parties, and there will also be Press advertisements. That is fine, but that is a formal piece of machinery.
Local authorities have found when dealing with Government Departments that informal consultation is often most useful. It is quicker and pleasanter. There is no formal cross-examination and calling of witnesses, and the procedure is very much less expensive. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to note the point, and, if possible, give us some assurance that that procedure will be available. Such an assurance would please all local authorities, including those of Stoke-on-Trent. Wigan and Kidderminster. We should like to have the opportunity to consult in these matters as informally as possible and as early as possible so as


to avoid a formal consultation and the expense which that involves. I have nothing to add on Clause 2 except that I feel that the hon. Member for Clitheroe was on a very strong point indeed, and that we want written into the Bill the provision for consultation for which he asked.
Again, with reference to restoration in subsection (2) of Clause 2, I note that the word "land" is used in one paragraph, whereas in the next there is a special reference to "agricultural land" We are wondering about other forms of land on which work takes place and which are damaged, for example, allotments. Has this point been put to the Parliamentary Secretary? If allotment holders are dispossessed they will certainly lose their crops and they may find that all the work they have put in for some years is of no avail and must be started again if some time later they get their allotments back. Have they no right to compensation? I would have thought that, practically and morally, they had as much right as the farmer. If hon. Members agree with me, I hope that someone will take up this point during the Committee stage, on which I would like to have served, but on which Committee I cannot serve because I am enjoying myself on the Slaughterhouses Bill on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Another point with reference to subsection (2) about damage is that done to highways. Local authorities declare that contractors employed by the Coal Board sometimes use highways very roughly indeed near the seat of operation, and leave them badly damaged. If that is true, as I am sure it is, should not the local authorities have the right to claim that the damage be made good?
We speak with some feeling upon these matters when we come from areas which are undermined, and when our roads tend to sustain damage so easily in any event because coal is taken from under our feet. If opencast coal mining operations are added to that, and if double damage is thus sustained by portions of our highways, we have a right to say that this is a legitimate grievance and that we ought to have compensation, or at least a restoration of our highways so that they are properly usable again.
Now I come to another point, if the Parliamentary Secretary will be patient with me and the House will excuse me for raising so many points at this stage. Clause 35 refers to prospecting operations by the Coal Board, and these are to be carried out without any prior notice to anyone, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. At present, local authorities receive information, so do owners and occupiers, of the Board's intentions before the Board is authorised to carry our prospecting arrangements. The Association of Municipal Corporations asks that this useful type of procedure should be continued, notwithstanding the formal procedure which is introduced in this Clause.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): Many of these points can be dealt with later, but the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. If he will look at subsection (5) of Clause 35 he will see that with one very small exception, which is not material, notice has to be given.

Dr. Stross: I am glad to have that assurance and I accept the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has spent much more time on this Bill than I could have done. We have all received notices from the water undertakers about their fears if working takes place on their gathering grounds. It is not only that they ask for compensation, they ask that there should not be opencast operations, for they do not want any pollution of water supplies. Nor do they wish to risk any damage to structures. They say that compensation is not what they are interested in. They want to be left alone, because these are vital matters. If they must be touched, they should be the last rather than the first. If there are to be priorities, careful consideration should be given to their point of view,
Lastly, I want the Parliamentary Secretary to think of the situation of a city such as the one I represent, where the only opencast work will have to be on land on the eastern side of the City of Stoke-on-Trent where we know coal outcrops. It is bad land. It has surplus coal, but it happens to be virtually the only piece of land on which we can rehouse our people. If this land is denied us it will mean that within the boundaries of our city there will be hardly any land


left for this purpose. We are in the midst of an extensive programme of slum clearance and the majority of houses are being built in this area. It would be a great blow to us to lose this land on the eastern side of the city. I do not know what we should do in that event.
I know that the Bill will not give any powers without scrutiny, without care, without the possibility of reference. I have mentioned this difficulty because we have had to suffer in Stoke-on-Trent, as have the constituents of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) for the fact that coal lies under our feet and also on the surface. When, in addition, the situation is such that the only piece of land left for rehousing within the city boundaries contains coal near the surface, and we may lose that land, we begin to wonder whether it would not be better to desert the city and build a now one. Of course, if we approach the Government for the necessary finance, we shall be told that there is no money available. Therefore, we feel that we have every right to say, as do the water undertakers, please leave us until the end or leave us alone.
In a special case of the type I have described, I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will always remain our good friends, if they are in office, and will help us by ensuring that the little land we have left for rehousing remains within our possession.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Opencast coal mining is a universally unpopular operation. Farmers dislike it, landowners dislike it, local residents—where opencast mining operations are being carried out—dislike it. The National Union of Mineworkers dislikes it. Most Members of Parliament are keenly aware of the feelings of their constituents in the matter, and most Members of Parliament dislike it themselves.
It has been forced upon this nation as an economic necessity and I think that many speakers in this debate have fallen a little short of the truth in failing to face that simple fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) was possibly the originator in the United Kingdom of the civil engineering operations which have led to the large-scale opencast coal mining industry of today. But that was in the stress, and under the duress, of war. It

was, to put the matter in its correct historical perspective, immediately following the important decision taken by the then Minister of Labour and National Service, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, to call up coal-face workers. They had been called to the Colours from 1940 onwards.
There was a steep decline in the number of men available in the pits. Coal production—there were no exports of coal in those days—had fallen a good deal lower than the aggregation of demand for industrial, domestic and transport purposes, and the scrapings of coal from seams close to the surface were, therefore, brought in solely, as far as we could see at the time, as a wartime measure. It was continued after the war by the Socialist Government because they could not get enough coal from the pits.
In 1947, after the great freeze-up and the shut-down of our factories when the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was Minister of Fuel and Power, it became necessary to plan for at least a further five years of opencast coal production, which was said at the time to be for the purpose of making good marginal deficiencies. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), during his tenure of office as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, gave, on 19th July, 1950, what is now regarded as an historic pronouncement nearly as inaccurate as all his other prophecies in similar fields, that opencast coal mining would be brought to an end in 1953. That was received with acclamation by both sides of the House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman looked just three years ahead. He was basing his prophecy upon the presumption promulgated by the National Coal Board in its highly inaccurate "Plan for Coal", published in 1950, that deep-mined coal output, as a result of nationalisation and new investment, would steeply rise and render opencast coal mining unnecessary.
Year by year, the failure of the pits under the present arrangements to produce enough coal for our needs has rendered it necessary to continue opencast coal mining. As late as 1956, the then Minister of Fuel and Power, the present Minister of Supply, was forced to the conclusion that opencast mining would have to continue for at least another ten years.
I state as my first point—I do not think that it has been emphasised sufficiently clearly so far in the debate—that the presence of the Bill before the House for Second Reading today is a measure of the failure of State ownership and operation of the pits, and that that ought to be recognised by every hon. Member.

Mr. T. Brown: Not a bit.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who occupied the attention of the House for a long while, really believes what he has just interjected, will he explain why his right hon. Friend proclaimed, in 1950, the ending of opencast coal mining by 1953, thus promising to end it within three years? Yet, seven years later, we are still dependent for marginal supplies upon these miserable scrapings of coal with all the dislocation, loss and misery that the system causes in areas of rich fertility and good farmland.

Mr. Brown: I will certainly reply to what the hon. Gentleman says. We did not realise our anticipations in 1953, and we have not realised them yet. However, as has been said by the hon. Member for Harrow, West, we are well on the way. One does not sink a shaft in twelve months; it probably takes five years. The development plan which was started in 1947 has still not yet been completed, but we shall realise what we set out to do when we nationalised the coal mines.

Mr. Nabarro: I invite the hon. Member to re-read the "Plan for Coal", and to compare the position today, eight years later, with the promises made by the Board in 1950. There he will find a genuine measure of the deficiencies of coal output from the pits.
I do not want to attempt to turn the debate into one upon deep-mined coal matters which would be more appropriate to a nationalisation day, but in this context I am not alone in my opinions. They have been widely expressed and canvassed in the national Press. An admirable view was published in the Daily Express on 2nd January, just three weeks ago. I quote from its Opinion column:
Despite modern machinery and new methods, mined coal output in 1957 was almost static.

On the surface there was a better story. Opencast sites produced a record 13,581,800 tons.
Until the mines raise their output, Britain cannot do without opencast coal. But the price is high.
To the bill for ripping the coal from good farming land, add the cost of replacing the torn-out topsoil. Add, too, the value of the crops never sown or harvested.
Opencast has existed since 1941. It is time Britain, whose technical ingenuity has solved so many other problems, learned to do without this crude and wasteful system.
The Daily Express is right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West—he declared his interest late in his speech—is a director of a civil engineering firm which operates opencast coal mining sites, and, of course, he supports these methods. I am much more concerned, in the national interest, as to where the genuine balance of economic advantage lies in a matter of this kind. I believe, as the right hon. Member for Blyth believed until he left office, that the sooner we do away with opencast coal mining the better it will be for the community as a whole and for our national economy.
Insufficient attention has been paid during the debate to the source of machinery employed by the civil engineering contractors. Many hon. Members will remember a series of Parliamentary Questions which I put to the President of the Board of Trade last year about the very large expenditure in United States dollars authorised by the Government for bringing to this country two very large dragline excavators for installation on the North-East Coast. One of the excavators promptly broke down and was out of action for several months.
It appears—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm or deny this—that the capital equipment for opencast coal mining today comes almost entirely from American sources and is being paid for in dollars. The late Mr. Richard Stokes, who was the managing director of a famous engineering firm responsible for the production of equipment of this kind, joined me at that time in condemning the purchase of the American capital equipment. He said, to very great effect on many occasions in this House, that the whole of the equipment could be manufactured in this country.
I would ask my hon. Friend to deal with this point when he replies to the


debate. The Bill asks for powers in effect for a twenty-year span for continuing opencast coal mining operations. Are the Government proposing to rely on American machinery for the next twenty years to carry out these operations, or, as a matter of broad economic and financial policy, as the sums of money involved are considerable, are the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Supply taking proper steps to build up in this country sources of supply for opencast coal mining machinery, thereby rendering it unnecessary for us to continue to spend large sums in dollars to import machinery?
I must also deal with the reply which I received from the Paymaster-General—I am very pleased to see him here during one of my speeches—to an intervention concerning the acquisition of land by the Board in connection with opencast mining operations. I received a very unsatisfactory answer. It is true that there is nothing in the Bill to empower the Board, if it so desires, to acquire land by purchase from a private owner, but my right hon. Friend will readily concede that such a need might occur. The implication of his reply was that the Government would not regard it as inimical to their policy in this context if the Board so purchased land and retained it permanently.

Mr. Maudling: Would my hon. Friend prefer that we should give a direction to the Board not to purchase land even if the owner wanted to sell it?

Mr. Nabarro: No, Sir. What I would prefer my right hon. Friend to do is to be quite explicit today and to say that in Committee he will consider the addition of a Clause stating that the Coal Board may purchase land if it so desires—purchase as compared with a compulsory rights order for a span of years—work the coal, but then be obliged, following restoration of the land, to resell it either at market value or at the highest price it can obtain for it. That would be reasonable. My right hon. Friend has said that the Coal Board might wish to acquire land, but he did not give the counterpart and say that the Board should later get rid of the land—or does he believe that it is desirable that the Coal Board should set itself up as a major farming enterprise, for if it continues to acquire land plot by plot that is what will happen?

Mr. Maudling: As well as interrupting me, my hon. Friend might also listen to me. I dealt with that point specifically. I made it clear that if an owner wants to sell his land, the Coal Board will buy it, but I also made it clear that the Board said that when it had finished opencast operations it would dispose of the land and did not intend to hold it for farming purposes.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend did not say that in response to my intervention, but I may have missed it in his speech. I will study HANSARD tomorrow. I am anxious that this point should be thoroughly ventilated, because there have been many complaints from this side of the House about the multifarious activities of the Board which are not directly associated with its fundamental purpose of winning coal.
I am prepared to give what support I can to the Bill in broad principle. I do not like opencast coal mining any more than the majority of hon. Members do.

Mr. T. Brown: We do not like opencast coal mining.

Mr. Nabarro: I gathered that from the forty-five minute speech which the hon. Member made. The fact is that, for all the reasons which I have explained, we have to put up with it for a few years longer. There will be hosts of Amendments in Committee to satisfy many of the Committee points, many of them controversial, made in the debate today.
However, there are four reasons which the majority of us should accept on Second Reading of this Bill. The first is that we are all satisfied that it is desirable to have fairly long-term statutory powers instead of Defence Regulations, but I hope that we accept that there will be delays, greater than at present, in winning the coal as a result of the interpolation of public inquiries to hear objectors.
I tried to make that point in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), who proclaimed that he was no less a supporter of the freedom and liberty of the individual who was having his property compulsorily acquired than I, but he did rather less than justice to the argument in failing to recognise that at present there is no means by which an aggrieved person can protest other than by the somewhat futile one of writing to his Member of Parliament.

Mr. Maudling: It depends on the Member of Parliament.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend is on very dangerous ground. He sits for a delightful residential constituency called Barnet, on the outskirts of London, far removed from the coal fields. I was threatened in my constituency, in an area of especial scenic beauty, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I laboured under a disadvantage, which was that my only way of trying to stop the Ministry of Fuel and Power from carrying on opencast mining operations was to raise the greatest possible agitation, to get petitions signed and to make public speeches, in other words, to kick up one devil of a row publicly and to ask innumerable Parliamentary Questions.
There was no statutory process by which the objectors, that is my constituents resident in this area of especial scenic beauty, could have their objections publicly heard and later adjudicated upon by a Minister of the Crown. I compliment my right hon. Friend on the proposal to change that position, a proposal which is common justice and highly desirable. I shall speak in greater detail, if privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee, on the provisions concerning the rights of appeal for objectors in an effort to satisfy myself that they are adequate to the needs.
Secondly, I welcome the Ministerial adjudication contained in Clause 1. The Coal Board already has far too many arbitrary powers in the autonomy it enjoys for mining coal on a near monopoly basis and the fact that a Minister of the Crown is to be the final adjudicator on whether opencast mining will be carried out, and to what extent, will give private Members of Parliament an opportunity by Parliamentary Questions and in other ways—and I am sure that the Table will be generous in this matter—to put many Questions to the Minister on this very important aspect of affairs.
I welcome the provisions for preservation of timber and, provided that there is generous and wide interpretation of the compensation proposals, I think that we should not experience any undue difficulty or trouble upon that account.
Subject to all those qualifications and my general condemnation of opencast

mining, I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: It is not my intention to keep the House long, but I have one or two comments to make because, as the Bill is to go to Standing Committee, I may not have an opportunity to make these points in Committee.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) took an unfair advantage of the House in his opening remarks by condemning nationalisation as a principle. He would have been better to have left that for another occasion, when he could have been attacked from this side of the House and it could have been proved beyond all doubt that nationalisation as a principle has been very successful since 1947.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry that the hon. Member should think that I was being unfair. I have not failed to speak in nationalisation debates in the last eight years. What have he and his hon. Friends been doing to allow me to get away with those opinions? I unfailingly express them.

Mr. Grey: We are dealing with a Bill about opencast mining and not with the principle of the nationalisation of the mines. I still believe that the hon. Member took an unfair advantage of the House in saying what he did.
It is true that none of us likes opencast mining, and many people in the country dislike it, too, but we must accept it as a necessity. But since the operations began the country has benefited to the extent of the coal produced which has helped to supplement deep-mined coal. Having said that, I believe that the Bill is necessary for safeguarding the people concerned.
There are two points I want to mention, to one of which I referred when the Paymaster-General was speaking. That was on who is to adjudicate when the land—I am referring to agricultural land—is restored to reasonable fitness. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was not quite sure of himself when he suggested that the Lands Tribunal would decide. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm or deny whether that is so.
I believe that when negotiations for acquiring land are in process, and also


in the matter of its restoration, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be consulted. It may not be feasible to put such a provision into the Bill, but we should have an assurance that that Ministry will be consulted.
I do not propose to enter into the ramifications of compensation, but to say a word about the terminal compensation problem. It is a fact and quite true that, regarding much of the land that has been excavated and then restored, compensation has been paid to the owners. But the land itself has still not reached its former standard because there has not been sufficient done to it. This is my personal opinion. I feel that when compensation is paid to owners of land there should be an obligation upon them so that part of that compensation is used to restore the land to its normal standard.
I do not know whether that is a feasible thing, but perhaps in Committee, when hon. Members consider these points, it will be possible, by means of an Amendment, to make it an obligation on the compensation receiver to plough back part of it into the land.
Those are the only two points that I wish to make. They are Committee points, but I am sure that they are important principle points. I recall what my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said about safeguards. I hope that when these new opencast operations are commenced care will be taken to ensure that they do not go too near to farmhouse buildings. A farmer who lives near my constituency told me yesterday that the jibbing is taking place within 40 yards of his building. That is too near, and I feel there should be safeguards so that operations of this kind are far removed from buildings. As the House will be aware, if these operations—cutting, shot firing, and so on—are near to houses the danger to the houses and the occupants is enormous.
I hope the Minister will consider these points to see what can be done to have this danger removed.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I intervene in the debate to make only one or two points. I agree with a great deal of what has been said, and therefore I shall not delay the House longer than is necessary.
Generally speaking, the Bill has been well received on both sides of the House. It has been called, quite rightly, a complicated Measure. I believe that it will be welcomed, amongst other things, as a long-delayed recognition of the right of the occupier, whose land and livelihood have been removed, to compensation for loss of income. We have been reminded that opencast coal has saved the country about £100 million annually for the past 17 years. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that opencast coal mining is disliked and generally deplored. That applies to both town and country. Quite a number of urban areas are threatened in that adjacent open green spaces may possibly be torn up. That is the case in my own constituency, where opencast coal mining has come close to the town and may come again.
Although opencast coal mining is generally loathed, it has to be accepted. Those people who have disliked seeing green and pleasant land torn up have at least seen it torn up in the national interest. It has been the hope of so many that this method of mining would come to an end. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) suggested that opencast coal mining may become a permanent method of production. He also suggested that we cannot estimate beyond ten years. I suggest that so long as it is in the national interest it must continue, and in consequence this Bill quite reasonably makes certain solid provisions.
It is always to be hoped that when land is required for this purpose it can be acquired with full agreement on all sides. The Bill quite rightly includes a provision regarding compulsory rights orders. I express the hope that a compulsory rights order will be the last resort in every case, and that every effort shall be made before a compulsory rights order is made.
I further suggest that the general atmosphere of co-operation can be further improved by a stricter control on restoration conditions. We have heard a great deal about this problem this afternoon. Certain early sites were very badly restored. The code of restoration in existence is non-statutory. I am quite sure that the force of law in this direction will be more than welcome. I agree


with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), who suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture might be consulted at certain stages. Surely the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Agriculture might very well work together regarding restoration.
I should like to emphasise also the possible danger to land of terminal compensation. This type of compensation surely should be paid on the condition that it is spent on the affected land. I realise that complete restoration to a former state is sometimes quite impossible. Timber and identical buildings obviously cannot be replaced. However, I contend that the principle of compensation paid being ploughed back should be accepted. The provisions in the Bill regarding compensation are generally reasonable. It is inevitable that the calculation of lost incomes, based, as they must be, on a notional rent and on a notional productivity, must be hypothetical.
I contend that the problem of compensation should be considered against the background of the average farmer's very natural resentment at this interruption in what is, after all, his chosen way of life. Loss of profits is far from all that the average farmer who has known this interruption to his life is interested in. The Bill will not compensate him for the loss of the pleasure of the pursuit of his everyday work or for the enjoyment of the peace of his home.
Much has been said today about opencast coal methods, but I believe that a tribute should be paid to those people who have suffered during the past seventeen years. They have not complained a great deal, despite the fact that in many cases, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has stated, the opencast workings came close to their homes. There are many cases of homes being demolished. It does sometimes seem quite unnecessary to remove a house and farm buildings for the sake of the coal underneath.
I conclude by paying my tribute to those people who have put up with a great deal, and are in the national interest prepared to put up with a great deal more in order that opencast coal mining can continue.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Like other speakers, I deplore the necessity for the continuance of opencast coal mining, but, like them also, I welcome the Bill, which is to replace the Defence Regulations under which vie have been working. I am glad to see that we shall now give some permanence to this legislation, even though it is to be hoped that this form of mining will not be perpetuated beyond the period of absolute necessity.
I strongly agree with those who have welcomed the compensation provisions. It so happened that in the Session 1948–49 I chaired a sub-committee of the Estimates Committee which looked into the question of opencast coal mining. At that time we found that the occupier was not compensated for the loss of his livelihood during the period when his land had been taken over. We made some recommendations about that and other matters, and I am glad that much of the harshness which was then part of this job of opencast coal mining has been removed.

Mr. David Grenfell: The process was started at a time of crisis.

Mr. Champion: As my right hon. Friend says, it was started in a crisis, and it continued in a time of fuel crisis. When one passes out of a crisis, however, it is right to try to relieve those who suffer from the misfortune of having their land taken from them.
It is to be hoped that the Minister and the Committee which will consider the Bill will remember some of the points which have been so well put in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) have called attention to some of the anomalies and difficulties that will remain even under the Bill as at present drafted. I hope that in Committee these points will be very carefully considered and amendments introduced where necessary. The livelihood of the farmer is being taken from him. His future is at stake and he stands to lose much which has taken him years to build up. He cannot, for example, easily replace a herd which has been built up over the years merely by going into the


market and buying cows which happen to come on to the market on that day, or subsequently.
Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can state whether research is still going on into the subject of the fertility of the topsoil which is scraped off initially, put on one side in a great heap, and eventually put back on top. The Estimates sub-committee was given to understand that as a result of this operation some of the beneficial bacteria were destroyed. I should like to know whether research is still going on into this matter, and into the question of the restoration of these bacteria, or the implementation of some other method of dealing with the topsoil which will ensure that these bacteria are not destroyed.
It seems to me that the Minister is undoubtedly trying to make adequate provision for the restoration of agricultural land, as far as possible. I am glad that that is being done, because it is vital to our countryside, but as I travel through my constituency I can tell exactly where restoration has been carried out after opencast working, by the concrete posts and wire fencing which mark the boundaries of the fields. It does not seem at all like the English countryside; it looks like a little bit of the Middle West. I hate the sight of these posts and fences. They are anathemas to me, and I should like to think that between these temporary boundaries, we can ensure that good haw, thorn or other hedges will be planted.
We all recognise that the beauty of the English countryside springs very largely from its hedgerows. If one goes abroad one sees the difference straight away, and coming back to this country one thanks those who went before us for dividing up our country and planting hedgerows. We should not permanently destroy this beauty by making concrete posts and wire the permanent boundary fences. We should ensure the planting of decent hedgerows in their place. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned the importation of huge dragline machines. In 1949, when I was on the Select Committee on Estimates, we were given to understand that we were coming to the end of that importation and were reaching a position where, in the future, capital expenditure upon that sort of thing would be made

with firms in this country, and when we could not only produce them here but would be in a position to export them to Australia and other countries which use them to a considerable degree.
I was disappointed to hear from the hon. Member for Kidderminster that we still have to incur large amounts of capital expenditure in dollar form abroad on this equipment. I hope that some consideration will be given to this question and that we can give further stimulation to our great manufacturers of these devices. Despite the fact that we should like to see the end of opencast coal mining, we must realise that it will not cease for some time and that the use of these machines will certainly continue in the Dominions and the rest of the Commonwealth. If we can do anything in this regard, surely we should be trying to do it. Although I hate having to do so, I support the hon. Member for Kidderminster in this matter.
Nearly a quarter of the total amount of coal produced by opencast methods is produced in the county part of which I have the honour to represent. Of the coalfield area of Derbyshire, which is a very great one, about one-eighth has so far been cleared for opencast working. The same thing is happening there as in other parts of the country where this work is going on. There is the hideousness, the blasting, the dust, the noise, and the heavy traffic to and from the site which damages the roads, as we have been reminded. All this has to be borne by the very people whose lives are spent in this sort of atmosphere. They work underground in the dust and noise and everything which coal mining brings, and they come back up from the pit and experience precisely the same sort of conditions on top.
I quite understand why Derbyshire County Council and other local authorities in this area are being urged—and why they, in turn, are urging us—to do something about this. It so happens that because these seams are very near the surface in Derbyshire that county seems to be bearing an undue proportion of the evils which opencast coal mining brings. There have been complaints about the fact that at the time that all this is going on the county council is being urged to find sites for stocking coal because it is not immediately saleable. In addition to


the inconvenience caused by these huge opencast mining sites, which make a hideous mess of the countryside, a further large area of the county is being used for stocking the coal after it has been won.
I understood the Minister to say that this was inevitable because we have had some mild winters, and that these stocks might be dispersed in a very short time if we should run into a very cold period. Inevitably and understandably the people of Derbyshire feel that they have had more than their whack in this matter of opencast mining and the stocking of coal on the surface. They suggest that perhaps the time has come when the operation could be suspended in a county which has had so much of it and the coal regarded as being stored in situ, prospected to find the proximity to the surface, and so on, but left there until a national emergency, or a fuel emergency, actually demands the mining of that coal.
It is for the Minister to consider whether that is a possibility. They suggested it, and I support it for obvious reasons. I hope the Minister will consider this and that some of the other points I have made will be considered now and during the Committee stage.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) reproaching those who, when restoring land after opencast mining operations, erect concrete posts and wire round fields, so leaving much disfigurement of the countryside. I hope he will agree that if it is not possible to plant a quickthorn hedge at least posts and rails cut from home-grown timber, and impregnated with creosote, which is a by-product of British coal, makes a better fence than cement posts, which crack in frosty weather.
The few things I wish to say concern woodlands and particularly their amenity value in coal mining areas, and I think that that follows logically on what the hon. Member has been saying. In our mining areas today, the acreage of woodland is very small. It would make a great deal of difference to amenity if the woodland acreage were much larger. Therefore, I hope it is not the policy of the Minister that the remaining woodlands in mining areas should be massacred too hastily, as

happened all too often in the years immediately following the war, when there were one or two very bad cases.
The loss of good agricultural land is always deplored because of its waste, but the loss of a half-grown woodland is infinitely worse, because it takes so much longer to put it back. Therefore, when it may be thought necessary to mine coal under existing woodland, I hope it will be the policy of the National Coal Board to consider the timing of such fellings. A delay of ten years might allow such timber to have a value for mining, instead of being cut and used only for firewood.
If the loss of woodland involves compensation, I hope that the Clause dealing with that question will be interpreted as generously as possible for agriculture. I do not want to enter into what might be called Committee points, and, in any case, Clause 26 is extremely difficult to understand because it is almost entirely calculation by reference. I hope the principles are correct, but I suspect that they may not be. For instance, the loss of annual profit on a young wood will always be hard to prove. An oak wood of ten or fifteen years may be costing something every year. It may still be at a stage when there is no annual profit, but a small annual cost, yet, quite apart from general amenity loss, the loss of that young plantation is a definite loss to the owner.
What happens if part of a woodland is taken and the wind blows down the remainder, as often happens, when protection is removed? Terminal compensation may often be difficult to decide. An oak wood may be fifty years old when the land is taken for opencast mining and would have been sixty years old when the operation finished, yet at neither age would the timber be of great value in the market, although the loss might well amount to quite a substantial sum.
I make my final plea in connection with restoration. Some land is much more costly to restore for agricultural use than others. Whatever some people may say, I believe that some land will never again be as good for farming as it was before opencast mining took place on it. I have heard that in some cases the land has actually been improved, but there are certainly other cases in which the reverse has happened. Is it wise to spend a great deal of money on the restoration


of such land, which could become very good woodland for the expenditure of a smaller amount? If we increased the area of woodland in our mining areas we would make a very substantial addition to the amenities of those areas.
I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend ought to encourage a policy of wholesale acquisition in cases where previous owners and occupiers want their land back for farming, but occasions may arise when it is possible, after opencast mining has been completed, to add to the woodland acreage and, in so doing, to add very materially to the amenities of a district which today is windswept and bare, and not very attractive to live in.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: The reason I ask for the indulgence of the House while I intervene for a few minutes is that I hope I may be able to throw a little light on a matter raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in connection with American machinery used in opencast coal mining.
It happens that during the war I was a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and a subcommittee on which I sat was asked to inquire into the reason why the cost of production of opencast coal was above the revenue obtained at the time for that coal. In other words, the Ministry was facing a considerable loss every year and yet it was so important to get the coal that it had to be obtained at all costs. During our inquiries, we found that one of the reasons for the high cost of production was that we were using very inefficient excavating machinery produced in this country. It was the introduction of American machinery, some of which we saw in action, that caused a considerable drop in cost and more economic production of opencast coal as a consequence.
I do not know what the position is now. I did not know that this matter was to be raised, or I should have tried to look into it before this debate. At the time, it was very important to use this machinery because it enabled coal to be produced by opencast methods at a reasonable cost. The Americans had had very considerable experience of this kind

of opencast mining. In the Pennsylvania coalfield where this method is used, there are very thick seams just under the surface and they had specialised in this form of winning coal, whereas at that time we had not. I hope that when he replies, the Paymaster-General will tell us something about this matter. Possibly that American machinery could be replaced by machinery produced in this country, and in that case the hon. Member for Kidderminster made a very good point. If that is not so and if the Americans are still the best producers of this kind of machinery, then the hon. Member's case falls completely to the ground.
I should like to support the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) about preserving the amenities and the agricultural and silvicultural values of our English countryside, which will be seriously damaged by the extension of opencast mining. When I was going round the country with this sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure we visited the Wentworth area of Yorkshire and South Wales and saw the devastation caused by these operations. On the other hand, I well recall seeing that in most cases the top soil was being carefully preserved and put back. After the top soil had been put back I saw crops growing on it and they seemed to be as good as those on ordinary ground.
It may well be that conditions vary very much. We all know that bacterial action is a very important matter in the growing of crops. It is a question not only of the chemical composition of the soil but also of its bacterial content. That ought to be considered and steps ought to be taken to recondition the soil in such a way that it produces crops again.
It is also true that timber has to be cut away as a result of these activities, and I think there is a case either for making the National Coal Board responsible for replanting or for handing the ground over to the Forestry Commission for replanting. Quite apart from woodland timber, hedgerow timber is a very important aspect of our English countryside, and that hedgerow timber completely disappears in an area where opencast mining is taking place.
I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland, who said that woodland planting is sufficient. I should like to see steps taken to restore the hedgerow timber, too. I should not like to say how that can be done, but I am sure that the Forestry Commission would be able to do it. Whether the Commission would welcome the job, in view of all the other work it has on hand, is another matter.

Mr. Vane: Is not the difficulty about putting back hedgerow timber the fact that it is extremely unpopular with agricultural interests? We ought to get the small woodlands and spinneys planted first.

Mr. Price: I agree that it is unpopular, but I am not prepared to give way on the matter to the prejudice of the farmers, although I am a farmer myself. Farmers are not the only people who dislike trees. If one cut down every tree which one was asked to cut down, there would be hardly any trees in the countryside. We all know the prejudice which exists against trees anywhere near a house and even against trees some distance away from a house. In my opinion, we must take into consideration the restoration of hedgerow timber, too. I should not like to go into the question of how that could be done, but I should like to support hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised this matter.
I am sorry that it is necessary to consider the continuation of opencast mining for many years and I wonder what the present position is. I understand that the levels of consumption and production of coal are moving nearer to each other. There is, however, the problem of exports. Does the Paymaster-General consider that opencast coal will be used mainly for exports or will it be used for home consumption? As it is of a somewhat dusty nature and is small coal, I assume that the demand for it will partly come from the Electricity Authority, but I should like to know what the position is. In view of the fact that the level of production is nearer to the level of consumption than it has been for a long time, why is it necessary to consider continuing opencast mining for so many years?

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I think that the time has come to say quite frankly that the attitude of the Conservative Party to opencast mining has been neither consistent nor very honourable. When we were in opposition we bitterly opposed opencast mining and now we are governing the country we are bringing forward proposals for continuing opencast mining for many years to come. It should also be said that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) is by no means the only person who has been compelled to eat his words in this respect.
There can be only one justification for this somersault and it is that the Government can show that there is an overwhelming need in the national interest for the continuation of opencast mining. Certainly, the victims of opencast mining and those who are threatened with it in the future—and there are many of them in Northumberland—will take a lot of convincing that opencast mining is essential for national economic survival.
As has been pointed out in the House today, the National Coal Board is almost embarrassed by the quantity of its stocks of small coal. The Paymaster-General, in his opening remarks, said that the Board was to indulge in an advertising campaign to get rid of the 20 million tons of small coal. Much of the coal which will be produced by opencast mining, if not the majority of it, will be small coal of poor quality.

Mr. Maudling: The proportion of large coal in opencast mining is slightly higher than in deep mining.

Mr. Speir: That may be so, but the fact remains—and I hope my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the majority of the coal produced by opencast mining will be small and of poor quality. It is not surprising that in those circumstances the victims of opencast mining are suspicious about the necessity for continuing it for another ten or twenty years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) has pointed out that opencast mining is a very profitable proposition. The opencast executive of the Coal Board was, in fact, the only section of the Board to make a profit last year, and the civil engineering firms, as my hon. Friend was honest


enough to admit, are making very good money cut of these contracts for opencast mining operations.
I want to join with other hon. Members from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West {Mr. Philips Price), in asking for an assurance that we shall not buy any more opencast machinery from America, which costs us dollars. Surely that cannot be in the national interest.
If opencast mining must continue, in the national interest, for the next few years there are certain safeguards which I think should be laid down by the Government and which should be strictly adhered to. First, I do not think that the amenity aspect of this problem has had sufficient attention either from the Government in recent years or today in this debate. I know that the Government's view is that the amenity aspect will be taken care of by the necessity to get planning permission, with all the rigmarole of a public inquiry, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that the views of local authorities will not be lightly overridden, and that they will be allowed to make their views quite clear on the scenic aspect of these operations.
Personally, I should like to see inserted into this Measure a definite provision putting the Minister under a statutory obligation, when considering the desirability of a site being opened up, to give weight and thought not only to the agricultural side, but to the amenity side, particularly if the local authority has opposed the site in question.
I should like also to urge that not only should the actual operations on the site be very carefully considered, and the views of the local authorities listened to, but that consideration should he given to the opinions of county councils and other local authorities as to whether even prospecting and boring should take place. Fairly reasonable terms are provided in the Bill for compensating both owners and occupiers of land that is to be opencasted, but no provision whatsoever is made for those who are living in the immediate vicinity of a site and who may suffer very real hardship and financial loss. I think that the hon. Member for

Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has had examples of that in his own constituency—

Mr. T. Brown: A number.

Mr. Speir: As soon as the Coal Board goes into a locality and starts boring merely to see whether or not the coal is there in sufficient quantities, the word goes round that opencast operations are to take place and the value of the property in the area tumbles overnight. Yet those people get no compensation whatsoever under this Bill. Therefore, I think it essential that there should be careful safeguards to see that even prospecting and boring is not started without the views of local authorities being carefully considered.
As opencast mining is a financial proposition—and a paying one—the Government are surely under a duty to see that the terms of compensation are generous to all who suffer injury thereby. I do not think that it is too much to ask the Government to provide that when anybody can clearly show that, as an individual householder, he has suffered financial loss as a result either of opencast mining, or even as the result of boring, that loss should be made good by the Coal Board.
I hope that when the Minister replies he may be able to give us some assurance on that score. I hope, too, that the code for the restoration of agricultural land will be still further improved. It has been improved in the last few years, but from the information that I have received it is quite clear that it could be improved still further, particularly as regards drainage. At present, the drains are too far apart.
This is a highly technical Bill, and I am quite sure that it will require very careful consideration in Committee. After all that has been said today about the horrible nature of opencast operations, I hope that the Government will be prepared to respond in a generous and a humane manner to any proposals that are put forward during the Committee stage with a view to lessening the loss and the injury which victims of opencast mining are inevitably bound to suffer.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Although I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) about the necessity for safeguarding those whose interests


may be affected, to a greater or a less extent, by the operation of opencast mining, that is not what I wish to speak about.
This is a United Kingdom Bill, and applies to Scotland. I do not know why there is not a Scottish Minister on the Front Bench watching the progress of the Bill, particularly when we see the manner in which Scotland is treated by it. With some experience of the House, and of examining Bills affecting Scotland, I must say that I have never yet seen a Bill in which Scotland has been treated in such a fashion. At the end of almost every Clause there is a subsection making it applicable to Scotland. In Clause 2 there is a long and involved subsection (7) telling us how the Clause applies to Scotland, and, indeed, right through the Bill there are these references to the application to Scotland.
In the first place, this makes the work of anybody dealing with this problem in Scotland exceedingly difficult. Any legal firm, any county council or other local authority, or an individual, or an agent acting for an individual who has to interpret the Bill is placed at an immense disadvantage, and there is waste of time and money. To me, the whole thing seems to be rather absurd.
There is another side to the manner in which Scotland is dealt. This Measure deals with a number of matters about which Scotland has its own laws. There would not be the necessity for this vast number of references to Scotland and to interpretation were that not so, and if it is true that the Bill deals with matters about which Scotland has its own separate law surely we should have had a separate Scottish Bill. If this is to make sense in Scotland, or if we are to act in the tradition common to Scotland, legal matters affecting Scotland should be covered by a separate Bill. That seems to me to be the natural and right thing to do.
I can only think that the Government, anxious to save time, and aware of the fact that if this Bill had gone to the Scottish Grand Committee it would have been vastly improved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. Certainly. It is the experience of this House that the Scottish Grand Committee improves Bills to a much

greater extent than does any other Standing Committee in the House. Anyone with knowledge of the House knows that to be true.
I can only think that the Government, anxious to avoid this business of improving the Bill, and to avoid the careful scrutiny it would have received had it gone to the Scottish Grand Committee, have sought to dodge that by the most ridiculous process laid down in the Bill where, at the end of every Clause, there is needed an interpretation subsection. That cannot be right. This Bill cannot be the right method of dealing with Scottish legislation, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary—whom I wish to congratulate on his first appearance on the Front Bench—what consultations were held with the Scottish Departments in relation to this Measure?
Did the Scottish Law Officers accept this? We have a right to know. We ought to have had a Scottish Law Officer on the Front Bench. Where are the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General?

Mr. Ross: Away studying the Bill.

Mr. Willis: They will need to study it if they are to understand it. What consultations have taken place with the Scottish officers, particularly the Scottish Law Officers, about the Bill? Was it accepted by them in its present form? It seems to me that, to maintain and continue our own separate legal traditions in Scotland, we ought to have had a separate Bill for Scotland.
Although I realise that it may well not be possible, it would certainly be helpful if, when the Bill is published in its final form and ultimately achieves the status of an Act of Parliament, the various interpretations could be made clearer than they are at present to those who will have to deal with the Bill in Scotland. I doubt whether that will be possible, but I feel that an effort should definitely be made to do something about it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, when he looks at the Bill again, will himself agree that it is exceedingly difficult and wasteful of time to deal with these matters in Scotland on the basis of the method at present proposed.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: I must confess to feeling a certain difficulty in following the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who has raised questions as to whether or not the Scottish Law Officers have been consulted upon the Bill. The Bill, it is true, is made to apply to Scotland. My difficulty, representing a Northern Ireland constituency, is that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and, even if it did, we most unfortunately have neither coal nor Law Officers, or officers of any kind, here from Northern Ireland. I have, however, beer surprised today that there have not been more hon. Gentlemen opposite from the mining valleys of Wales. I did at one time have the pleasure of contesting a Welsh constituency, and it would perhaps be permissible, in the circumstances, if I were to mention a problem which has come to me from Wales. I am glad to say that, although I now sit for a Northern Ireland constituency, I still have a great interest in Welsh affairs.
The problem concerns compensation for that type of exploratory work which has to take place before it is decided whether to work opencast coal in the way we see it done. The case I have in mind, which well illustrates the point, is one which comes from Caergwrle, near Wrexham in Flintshire. It is a rural area. Very little has been said today about disturbance in largely built-up rural areas. Although many words have been said about disturbance to farms, little has been said about disturbance to the individual who is living in a more urban community, whose outlook and the enjoyment of whose property may be disturbed or damaged by an opencast site being started almost next door. This type of person usually lives on a property which does not extend beyond half an acre, and half an acre is the area adopted in the Bill in dealing with matters of compensation. Such an individual can face very real hardship.
I welcome Clause 46 of the Bill, which deals with disturbance during the time of exploratory work when the authority is deciding whether or not it is worth proceeding with opencast operations.

Mr. Willis: Not Clause 46.

Mr. Currie: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: That is a special Scottish Clause.

Mr. Currie: It is Clause 35. I had my finger marking Clause 46 because that was the general application Clause to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred in his speech.
All hon. Gentlemen will, I think, welcome Clause 35. It gives some right to compensation, but I should like to know whether that right to compensation will be given to people who are at the present time suffering this disturbance. In other words, will it be made retrospective? The case to which I referred has been going on for two years; drilling has been taking place in the land during the past twenty-four months, and the disturbance has been continuous during the whole of that time. Will these provisions for compensation be made retrospective so that that disturbance can be compensated in the way envisaged in Clause 35? Alternatively, are opencast exploratory operations and the opencast workings themselves to be suspended from now until the time when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? I hope that my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate will consider those alternative questions.
It is a very curious commentary on our skill in getting coal out of the earth that in this island, which is probably the tract of land richest in coal under the surface to be found anywhere in Europe, that we have to resort to this method of coal getting. Vast sums of money have been expended in the modernisation of our coal mines, as we all know. To come back to one concrete example which contrasts clearly the winning of coal from a mine with the winning of coal from opencast workings, it is estimated that from this site in Caergwrle 100,000 tons of coal may be won from the proposed opencast site whereas, on the other hand, 100,000 tons of coal could be obtained from the Llay Main colliery, which is only two miles away, within six weeks. The estimated yield from the opencast workings represent no more than six weeks' output from the Llay Main Colliery.
Is it really worth while to cause all this disturbance, to incur the great expenditure required and lose the agricultural land taken from farming not only for the duration of the operations but for the time necessary for reinstatement, to


say nothing of the expenditure of dollars for the purchase of the machinery we have heard about? Having regard to all that has been said, it hardly seems worthwhile, when one compares the output from opencast workings with six weeks' output from an orthodox coal mine.
I shall be greatly obliged if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will look into the question of the proposed site at Caergwrle and consider whether, in Clause 35 or some other appropriate part of the Bill, the Government can see their way to incorporating some limitation of the time during which exploratory borings are to be carried out on land in private ownership. Two years is a most unreasonable length of time for a disturbance of that nature to continue. Surely, work of that kind could be completed in, at most, six months. In that way, the disturbance to the individual would be minimised as far as possible.
I should like to say a general word on the principle of compensation, because it has been raised during the debate. The compensation to which I refer is for the loss of occupation, which applies mainly to the farming community. It is, and always has been, a fundamental principle of English law that a person who suffers an injury as the result of a wrong or an action of a third party shall do his utmost to minimise his loss flowing from that injury. In other words, if he is deprived of his occupation, he must do his best to mitigate the damage by accepting some alternative form of employment. That principle, which is fundamental to our English common law, should have application to the matter we are considering this afternoon.
The compensation provisions in the Bill are very necessary and I do not for one moment suggest that any of them should be taken away, but I hope that in the application of those principles in the Bill when it has become an Act, the Minister will have regard to that legal principle and will not wantonly part with money to a greater extent than is utterly necessary. That may in some way sound inconsistent, but what I am trying to say is that the effect on our economy of all these additional and unnecessary expenditures of money must be to aggravate the inflation from which we have been suffering for so many years. They all add up and

it is essential that we should keep a tight rein on the expenditure of public funds.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I welcome the quiet nature of the debate, but cannot help but be reminded of the mood of the House when we were discussing exactly the same thing ten years ago. Hon. Members opposite, who were then in opposition, were clamouring for the Labour Government to bring an end as quickly as possible to opencast coal mining operations. I remember it well, because, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I was a member of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Estimates that went into the whole question of opencast mining.
I remember very well the kind of debates we had and the feeling of Conservative Members in the House at that time. The question of the national interest was then very much of secondary importance to constituency interests in relation to the disturbance caused to the lives and property of their constituents in agricultural areas because of the need for opencast coal mining.
It is a very marked change today that in 1958 we should have a Conservative Minister who not only tells us of the need for opencast mining, but who is prepared to bring in permanent legislation regularising the procedures for commencing these operations and saying that they are required to be done for ten years. Indeed, the Minister was brought to book by some of his hon. Friends, who said that ten years was probably not nearly long enough and that it was foolish to stipulate such a figure.
I make that point because the party opposite has often been caught up by its own slogans and by the points its members make for political purposes against this side of the House purely to achieve local support in their areas and forgetful of the true national interest.
It was unwise for the Minister today to give the appearance that these operations would last for only ten years. It was quite unnecessary for him to say that, because there is no such limit within the Bill. From the aspect of the procedure of obtaining the coal, the expensive equipment which is used is a factor in cost which is dependent upon the length of


time over which operations are conducted. This point was made to us by the contractors in our inquiries some years ago. At that time, the operations were conducted not by the National Coal Board, but by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, as it then was.
It is interesting to notice that there have been fewer complaints since this matter has been dealt with by the Coal Board in relation both to actual operations and to the problems of restoration and reinstatement of the ground. Both in the earlier days, when the Minister of Fuel a id Power was responsible, and now, when it is the responsibility of the Coal Board, we have considerable ground for pride in that we have been able to do this job so well that there has been so little complaint in the long run.
I remember, for example, that when the Estimates Committee examined the question and tried to obtain information, we called in Stewarts and Lloyds to find out what they did in the case of restoration in relation to iron ore workings.

Mr. Willis: They did nothing.

Mr. Ross: We found that they did nothing at all. In other words, once again, an entirely different set of values was placed upon the work carried out by a nationalised industry or by a Department of Government than upon the operations of private enterprise. Indeed, if things are improved in relation to that industry, it is thanks to the work that was done so well and the standards set by my right hon. Friends on this side of the House when they had control from 1945 to 1950.
I believe that it was as the outcome of the work of the Estimates Committee in those days that the code concerning reinstatement was instituted and regularised. I emphasise the point made today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that it would be as well if the House could look at the code and discuss it when it is being brought up to date by means of an order.
That brings me to yet another aspect concerning the silence of hon. Members opposite. We used to hear a great deal about delegated legislation and the powers that were given to Ministers, but today there has not been a single whisper about the powers to be given to Ministers. Today, a Conservative Minister is gaily

taking over powers of direction, the bringing of orders and delegated legislation throughout the Bill which will have considerable effects throughout the countryside. This is one more example of how the party opposite behaves by sloganised politics and then comes up against the practical realities of government.
I hope that now we are attaining a more objective frame of mind in considering the nation's need for coal it will be appreciated that the 131 million tons—I think it was of—opencast coal mined last year, the 160 million tons since opencast operations began in about 1942, have been absolutely vital in the economic battles of this country. Even if tomorrow or next year we were very considerably to increase the output of deep-mined coal we should still need this additional coal being got by opencast working.
There is no doubt, however, that it creates rather serious problems, more particularly in some areas, not only for owners of land and especially owners of agricultural land and farmers, but also for those who have a care for the scenic beauties of the country. Nevertheless, we have now worked out an administrative formula whereby objections are properly met and a balance of justice properly struck between the needs of the nation for agricultural production and coal production. It is not always that the Minister will give the right to the Coal Board to continue its operations without properly balancing the needs of the nation in those respects.
I come now to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). It was important, and I was surprised that the Paymaster-General did not rise to answer it. My hon. Friend asked whether or not this legislative change being made will curb the activities of the Coal Board in the opencast mines. I am referring to the rights the Board presently holds to stock coal and dispose of it. My hon. Friend has legal experience, and I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the words "authorised operations" in Clause 1 (5) cover those things about which my hon. Friend was speaking. Indeed, I was sorry that that Ministerial silence was continued during the whole of my hon. Friend's speech.


There is no doubt that because of the Bill the number of areas in which the Board can operate in future will be cut down, if it is not to have made available spaces in which to handle the coal and store it prior to its disposal.
Apart from that, the Bill may increase the cost of operations because of what may be demanded of the Board in return for continued use of land. This is one of the most serious defects of the Bill. I presume it is a defect since the Paymaster-General took no pains at all to answer my hon. Friend at the time. It is one that we must seek in Committee properly to amend.
When the Paymaster-General finished speaking I got up and asked him—I do not know what impression I made upon my hon. Friends—if he would ensure that in the Committee on the Bill there would be a Law Officer from Scotland to help us. He replied that he could not promise since that was a matter which was not within his province. I appreciate that, but I think he has a certain amount of influence, and I would advise him for his own safety to have a Scottish Law Officer there, because from the Scottish legislative point of view, or from that of anyone trying to understand the law, this is the most ridiculous hotchpotch jigsaw Measure I have ever come across. I think I am understating the case. The new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, whom we wish well, and from whom we hope for many things, will not be able to rise to all the Scottish legal implications. We do not expect him to, and I am sure he agrees with me.
We read through Clause 1 and through Clause 2, and then, towards the end of Clause 2, in subsection (7), we suddenly come to our senses by reading:
for references to the Act of 1447, to Part ill of that Act, and to sections fifteen and twenty-eight of that Act, there shall be substituted respectively "—
this that and the next thing, and so on, for at least half a page.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Quite normal.

Mr. Ross: Yes, but we get language like that again in Clause 2 and again in—

Mr. Willis: Almost every Clause.

Mr. Ross: Yes. I have them all marked. We have it in Clause 8 and Clause 9 and again in Clause 11. Is this normal?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The hon. Member should read the Labour Party's nationalisation Acts.

Mr. Ross: I am asking whether this is normal, and an hon. and learned Member opposite has already said it is. He is only quoting the Paymaster-General, because the right hon. Gentleman said that we were returning here to the normal process of legislation. I would correct him by saying this is the process of Tory legislation. This is the sort of thing we have in Scotland had to stand from our legislative masters for far too long.
I had reached only Clause 11. The same sort of language occurs again in Clause 12, and Clause 15 is the same. In every one of these Clauses there is a special application to Scotland. We have a right to ask the Government whether they will produce a Bill for Scotland with all these references properly set out so that we shall not have to trudge through this complexity of English legislation and make the consequential changes afterwards.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend is not forgetting, is he, that after all the subsections making these applications to Scotland we have a Clause of about four pages in length relating to Scotland?

Mr. Ross: Yes, Clause 46, a very important Clause indeed, so important that one hon. Gentleman opposite mixed it up with something else; a shocking thing to do.
How nonsensical all this is. We keep reading of the Scottish Act of 1947. I am the first to admit that there were one or two Scottish Acts in 1947, but we have to travel a long way back to find out that the Scottish Act of 1947 is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947. Then we have mention of the Scottish Act of 1949, and we eventually discover it is the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949. We have to be very careful about that, very careful indeed, because of Clause 22. I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to this, for this is the kind of thing about which we have to be worried, we exploited Members of Parliament for Scotland.
Clause 22 (4) says:
In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to the Act of 1948 and to sections forty-three, fifty-seven and fifty-eight of that Act there shall he substituted respectively references to the Scottish Act of 1949 and to sections forty-four, fifty-seven and fifty-eight of that Act.
That is perfectly clear, until we get to Clause 46. This is not a Committee point. I could deal only with each Clause as it came in Committee.
Clause 46, which itself consists of about four pages of application to Scotland, says in subsection (4, a):
…for references to section fifty-seven of the Scottish Act of 1949 "—
That is the bit that I have just read in Clause 22—
there shall be substituted references to section ten of the Crofters Holding (Scotland) Act, 1886—or "—
We have our choice—
section fourteen of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, as the case may require…
Was there ever such a tangle?
If it ended with the Clauses it would not be so bad, but we get the same thing all through the Schedules. Clause 38 is a very popular Clause relating to Scotland. I can imagine Scottish lawyers sitting down and poring over that Clause and regarding it as important because it deals with provisions as to settled land, mortgaged land, and other special cases. But subsection (6) of that Clause says:
This section shall not apply to Scotland.
They, therefore, immediately ask themselves, "Where are the special cases in respect of Scotland dealt with in the Bill?" And they look and look and find no answer. It will be up to us as Scottish legislators to find out where they should be inserted or whether they should be inserted at all.
It is most unfair that I should be addressing these remarks to an hon. Gentleman who has absolutely no responsibility for this part of the Bill at all. Some of my hon. Friends have felt that I have been a little carping in my criticism when, at times when major Measures which bore the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland have been before the House I have insisted that there should be a representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench opposite.
The second name on this Bill is that of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

He is its chief supporter, but during the whole proceedings, certainly when I have been here—and I went out only for a meal—there has not been a representative of the Scottish Office present. Yet we have not only a Secretary of State but three Joint Under-Secretaries. We have also a Minister of State. He is in another place and, therefore, we do not expect to see him here, but we also have two Law Officers for Scotland.
Not one of these Ministers has graced the Front Bench opposite for any length of time, if at all. It is most unfortunate that when we are faced with such a tangle, which cannot possibly be made to make sense in Committee, we should not have some explanation as to why this way was taken in relation to Scottish legislation. This tangle has arisen for the simple reason that Scotland has its own legislation in relation to town and country planning to which these aspects of planning permission, entry and compensation are related. Special legislation relating to agriculture Acts is another important consideration in the actual starting or possibility of starting on opencast sites.
Once we start to interfere with these things by means of some other new piece of legislation, the only real lucid way of tackling the matter is to have a purely Scottish Bill. This Measure is a very poor second on which no Government should embark. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage I shall not be a member of the Committee, because I shall be blamed for keeping the Committee at it.

Sir I. Horobin: It is not as bad as that.

Mr. Ross: I might lengthen the proceedings by raising these points and asking for explanations, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be able to give me. It is not too late even now to hope that someone will run out for the Secretary of State for Scotland and that the right hon. Gentleman will come here with the news that the Government propose to withdraw these Scottish applications from the Bill and put them in a special Scottish Bill to deal with opencast mining in Scotland.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the realms of Scottish law. I


will only say to him that the United Kingdom Bill, with the references over to the Scottish Act, should present no difficulty to anybody. Indeed, such pleasant expressions in Clause 46 as
'easement' means servitude;" and—
'freehold interest' means the interest of the owner of the dominium utile;
remind me of the days when I read Roman law, from which I do not doubt much of the Scottish law is derived. There should be no difficulty for any draftsman in transferring the relevant Clauses of this Bill to the expressions in Acts which a Scottish lawyer could easily follow.
I do not recommend the detailed application of this Bill to anybody in England and Scotland for light reading, because it is complicated in its wording when we get to the compensation Clauses. However, anybody who reads it with an English or Scottish lawyer should have no difficulty in following it, provided he takes enough trouble. So to bring in two separate Bills would be unnecessary in the circumstances.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that it was unnecessary to have an agricultural Act for Scotland? Is he saying that it was unnecessary to have a Scottish National Health Service Act? All those things arose from the body of Scottish law, and yet a departure is made in this instance. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman as a lawyer in England to say that the Bill is all right, but the fact is that it just does not make sense.

Mr. Doughty: Upon that I join issue with the hon. Gentleman. The Bill makes sense, particularly to a Scottish lawyer. I should have to look up the Scottish Acts if I wanted to follow it.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way? The point we are making is that the Bill adds to the difficulties of people in Scotland in trying to understand this legislation. First, they have to read the whole Bill, and then they have to read something else to modify that which they have been reading. This is a waste of time, money and labour.

Mr. Doughty: I am sorry to deprive the hon. Gentleman of a Scottish grievance, but English lawyers have to do the

same with English Statutes. Some people do not like legislation by reference, but we have to do it just the same. I am sure that the Scots, who are a hardworking race, will not object to a little paper work with a book or two to follow what this Bill means.

Mr. Willis: It is all very well for a lawyer, but what about the client who has to pay for his help?

Mr. Doughty: He should be very pleased, because he will find that lawyers are very good value for his money. I have the greatest admiration for the Scots, but I will leave this point and go back to the point on which I rose to address the House.
Every hon. Member who has referred to the Bill and to opencast mining has said the same thing in different ways, namely, "I do not propose to object to this Bill, but I do not like opencast mining." If we do not like it, how much less will it be liked by the person who is directly affected by it? How much more strongly will he object to it in his own case when his land, which he is working in whatever form, is suddenly affected by one of these peremptory orders?
I wonder whether the House realises the sweeping powers it is giving the Minister in Clauses 1 and 3 by a simple order of one Minister? Please do not think I am criticising the present Minister or any other, but the general public will not understand why the Minister of Fuel and Power does not have what we would call in this House an interest in the making of these orders.
Under Clause 1, all that he has to do is to give an authorisation, and under Clause 3 he gives a compulsory rights order, and there is an end of the matter. One's farming comes to an end or one's property is taken from one for very many years and, however it is restored, despite the best efforts, it can never be the same thing. Yet these powers are given to one particular Minister.
Has the House already forgotten the Report of the Franks Committee, which stressed that openness, fairness, and impartiality ought to be the characteristics of the tribunals and inquiry procedures? Yet we have in this Bill exactly the procedure which has been so criticised in other Bills in the past and was criticised by the Franks Committee.
The public inquiry and the report to the Minister of Power will not satisfy the members of the public who are affected. Even if it is the best order that can be made in the circumstances and everything is as fair as can be, it will not satisfy them. Probably it will not satisfy other Ministers. The Minister of Agriculture will be vitally interested in the matter. When farming land is taken, representations will undoubtedly be made to him. Where does it say in the Bill that he has any interest in the matter?
If we take away farming, there are all the other mineral interests if we include soils as minerals. If operations on a site are for the purpose of obtaining coal, the Minister of Power is concerned. If the soil is clay, the Minister of Supply may be concerned in the operations, if it is limestone it will be the Minister of Works, and there are various other types of clays which are important to industry and in their case it will be the Board of Trade which will be concerned.
In the light of these conflicting interests, why should we give one particular Minister the sole power of deciding the question? There must be a conflict of interests, and we must take great care not only that we get the right decision as between the conflicting interests, but that the results give the utmost satisfaction to the public and that the public are not left with the thought, which may be entirely wrong, that the Minister concerned with the production of coal, the Minister of Power, is the one who has decided the question. If I were a farmer making a complaint, I should not like to think that the question had been decided only by the Minister of Power, a Minister not concerned with farming.
Having made my criticism, I do not wish the House to think that I have come here to criticise without making suggestions which I hope will be helpful. If we cannot have an outside tribunal to decide these questions in public, and give a public decision, which is the only real way by which the interests can be satisfied, then at least a Minister who has no sectional interest in the matter should be appointed in place of the Minister of Power. I suggest that the correct Minister would be the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for he is concerned with the use of the land of the country, wherever it may be. He

could properly weigh up all the conflicting interests and competing claims for the use of a piece of land. The Minister of Power could make representations to him in the proper way, in public.
I submit that the Bill would be a better one if these very wide and very sweeping powers were vested not in the Minister of Power but in the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I rise to introduce what is a local point on this issue, and I am very glad of the opportunity of doing so. The council of Chorley was informed in August of last year that it was proposed to prospect about 150 acres of land owned by the council and already partially developed for housing. The council was asked for its views, which it expressed very forcibly, against the land being used for opencast mining. The council had plans drawn up to cover the land with houses, and part of it was to be used as a site for a secondary school.
There was another difficulty which I raised with the Ministry of Supply. Almost adjoining this area is a large Royal Ordnance factory whose work is of such a nature that dust must be excluded from the buildings. I pointed out to the Ministry of Supply at that time that if the area were used for opencast working—I have some knowledge of the way in which opencast mining is done in Lancashire—when the wind was blowing in the direction of the Royal Ordnance factory, it would certainly carry dust into some of the buildings. Workers in those buildings have to wear special clothing and rubber boots before being allowed in the buildings, which will show how serious is the danger of dust in the buildings.
The Ministry of Supply took up that point but so far has not decided whether it should object to the opencast mining. However, the matter has been in the hands of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government since that date and the Ministry has now given permission to the Ministry of Power to prospect by boring holes in the land to find what coal there is.
Chorley Council is very much concerned about the fact that all its plans are in abeyance, it cannot build houses


and the Church of England education authority cannot continue with its plans for the school. Everything is held up. In the agreement which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has made with the Ministry of Power for the prospecting of this site for coal, the Ministry of Power has been given permission to continue until July next year, so that it has a hold over the land even if it does not begin to develop it this year. Even if it is found that there is not sufficient coal to make development worth while, the Ministry of Power will still have control of the land until July next year.
I think that is altogether against the best interests of everyone concerned. The council is in great need of houses. It wants to develop this land for houses. Its plans were drawn up years before. This land was purchased before the war, when some of the houses were built. It wants to continue with that development, but in the centre of the town there are almost 150 acres of land which is sterilised because of the delaying action of the authority. I urge the Minister to look into this matter to see if a decision can be reached with the greatest speed. The first necessity is the school. The authorities wish to proceed with the plans for the erection of this school. We all know that it takes some time to build a school, and the children in Chorley are at the moment in great difficulties regarding secondary school education.
Many things can be improved in the actual working of opencast mining. The contractors do their work, I suppose, as well as they can under difficult circumstances, but the top soil ought to be kept far more separate than it is at the moment. There is far too much mixing of the top soil with the subsoil. We all know that if subsoil is mixed with the top layer when the land is restored we will not get crops from that land for some time. Therefore, greater care should be taken with the separation of the top soil from the subsoil.
The second great difficulty is drainage. When this land is restored it must be drained, and all the drains and the subsoil have been broken up. When the coal is taken out there is always subsidence. For up to ten years that land is gradually sinking. I have seen drains broken within 12 months of being laid.

The result is that over all these areas there are drains which are high and low, broken and disjointed. It seems to me that there should be a method of consolidating the subsoil before the top soil is put on. I think that with the machines in existence, such as heavy rollers, the subsoil could be consolidated when it is put back, to such an extent that it would shorten the time during which subsidence would break the drains. If greater care were taken in that respect, the results would be far better. In restoring the top soil it is inevitable that the soil will get mixed, but it need not get mixed as much as it does.
Another point is that when the top soil is put on, it should not be run over with heavy machinery to the extent that it is. By all means let the subsoil be consolidated, but the top soil should not be crushed and rolled to the extent that occurs. It should be allowed to sink more naturally, and the drainage should be carried out after the whole of the soil has been consolidated. If that is done, there is no reason why the land should not be brought into good productivity again. It cannot be brought back into full productivity for many years—that is an impossibility—but it can be brought into a good state of partial restoration which will enable the farmer to carry on his work and gradually to restore the land to a measure of full fertility.
I hope that these matters will be kept in mind when the new set-up provided for by the Bill is brought into effect, and that the Minister will look into the question of the long delay which I have brought to his notice. There is no need for it. I hope, too, that the opposition of the council and the Church of England school education authority will be fully and fairly considered. There are very few sites upon which these schools can be conveniently placed in industrial areas. If the Minister will consider this case sympathetically, I feel that the council will be able to proceed with its housing development, the school authority will be able to proceed with its school, and the centre of Chorley will not be broken up and disfigured, as it certainly will be if the present scheme is allowed to proceed.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Harold Neal: Almost every speaker has confirmed the need to regularise the production of opencast


coal; indeed, from what we have heard during the debate it would seem that both sides of the House must accept responsibility for not having introduced legislation along these lines years ago.
The Paymaster-General commended the Bill to the House in another of his excellent speeches. I never cease to envy the ease of his delivery and the capable manner in which he presents the salient facts of his case. It is pleasing to know that he can avert his eyes from the glitter of the European Common Market to consider the mundane affairs of the British coal industry. We were glad to hear him say that he will be pleased to receive, and will welcome, advice from both sides of the House in connection with the Bill.
With some of his conclusions, however, we find ourselves in fundamental disagreement. We shall make our objections known at a later stage in greater detail; meanwhile, I want to take up some of the points which have been raised. It may be that in doing so I shall speak somewhat disjointedly. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) began opencast mining as a wartime measure, when he was Secretary for Mines, not even the most responsible people in the coal industry calculated that it would have been continued to the present time. I do not know of anyone connected with the industry who predicted that we should be getting outcrop coal twenty-six years after this process had begun, but that is the period that the Bill foreshadows.
One notable feature about the debate has been the silence of those hon. Members opposite who, at a time between 1945 and 1951 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and myself were attempting to defend the continuance of opencast mining, were pleading for its complete cessation. I wonder what they are thinking now that their Minister has introduced a Bill extending it for ten years.
It seems both surprising and neglectful on the part of various Governments that opencast coal mining has been carried on for fifteen years under Defence Regulations. Nobody would deny that serious anomalies have persisted throughout that period, or that there has been considerable dissatisfaction and social convulsion in the areas affected by these operations.
This is a good Bill, a Bill of good intentions, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said, it is enshrouded in so much mysterious nomenclature of the law that it is difficult for us to appreciate the goodness in it. But I believe this about the Bill: there is a clear intention to establish responsibility at every phase of the operation.
Originally, the Ministry of Works was responsible, as agents to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, for the service of notices under the Defence Regulations for prospecting and requisitioning land and minerals, The Ministry of Works was also responsible originally for settling the terms of compensation. Later, those duties were absorbed by the Ministry of Fuel and Power and, subsequently, by the National Coal Board. The outstanding advantage of this Bill is that there's responsibility placed on the Ministry of Power and it is self-evident almost from the beginning to the end of the operations.
Under Part I of the Bill, the Coal Board is forbidden to work opencast coal except under an authorisation of the Ministry of Power. Before the authorisation is finally confirmed all parties concerned, tenants, owners and local authorities, have all to be notified of the intention to work coal and, if they make objection, a public inquiry can be held locally. I am sure that everyone welcomes the fairness of that provision.
In the past, notices have been served to requisition land and only in rare cases has the intention to excavate not been fulfilled. Requisition of the land—perhaps sequestration would be a better word—has meant that civil engineering companies have conducted opencast mining operations and have not only requisitioned the land but have accepted almost a carte blanche requisition of the entire village in which the land is situated and all the roads leading to it.
One of those companies in the East Midlands Division rejoices in the name of "Earth Removals Limited". It is a title sadly in accord with what residents think about the huge operations for getting surface coal in the area. Little opportunity has been provided in the past for aggrieved parties to raise objection and there has been even less opportunity for their objections to be sustained.
We on this side of the House compliment the Paymaster-General upon the proper recognition of local authorities in the provision for public inquiries. Only those who reside in areas where opencast operations take place really understand the enormity of the inconvenience that is suffered by residents in the area. Not only is there loss and inconvenience to the tenant and the owner of the land concerned, but in the summer there are clouds of dust floating towards residential areas, clay and soil are deposited on the roadways in winter, there is noise of high-powered machines working day and night, there is the detonation of explosives and, as the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said this afternoon, there is the awkward problem of coal being strewed on the road because vehicles carry heavier loads than they are designed to bear.
If one is a motorist in an opencast mining area one is often behind a huge excavator which is being towed from one side of the area to another under police surveillance. I can assure the House that such a vehicle is more difficult to overtake than was a wartime Army convoy. These and other grievances not affecting the contracting parties can now be the subject of consideration' by a public inquiry. The local authority, until now the ugly sister in these matters, will have an opportunity of complaining and presenting its case if it believes that its area will be despoiled.
I know only too well from personal experience that opencast mining has few friends. The miners in my constituency call them sunshine pits, because coal can be obtained in the sunshine. Whenever a site is chosen the agricultural experts say, "This is the most productive piece of land in the area". The amenity lovers say, "This is an ideal beauty spot, the best in the country". The Minister finds himself between the devil and the deep sea when he has to make a decision.
I fully appreciate that if all objections were listened to there would be no opencast operations, but the public inquiry will be of assistance in guiding the Minister when he is deciding on priorities. I hope that all objecting parties will be made to feel satisfied of adequate opportunity to present their case. Landowners, tenants and local authorities will,

I am sure, welcome this provision and gladly avail themselves of it.
In this connection, there is a strange omission from the Bill. After the compulsory rights order provided for in Clause 3 has been finally confirmed by the Minister, operations begin, and from that point there is no provision for any aggrieved party to raise any objection. Not all opencast sites are in remote rural areas. Some towns of 25,000 population and more have them close to their housing estates. Sometimes there are dust problems to contend with—dust emissions which are difficult to control.
Another thing which causes a great deal of trouble is the fact that no statutory duty is placed upon the contractors to work during daylight hours. Imagine what it means to nearby householders when the grinding roar of high-powered excavators continues all night long. Much of the heaviest movement of overburden takes place by floodlight. People asleep in bed are awakened by the noise of these machines. Where is there any provision in the Bill for any protest to be considered after operations have begun? There is none at all. Often in opencast mining the lowest strata of the overburden are unexpectedly strong and blasting operations have to take place. The detonations of these explosives damage roofs and windows of houses in the area.
I once had the privilege, if it were a privilege, of going up a church tower and watching instruments record the vibration of explosions on an opencast site. There was no redress to be obtained by the church authorities for any possible danger or damage to the church tower as a consequence of the vibrations from the blasting. The public at large are at the mercy of the contractors and I believe that some means must be provided of allowing objectors to make their objections after the public inquiry has been held.
I have one further query about public inquiries. Clause 45 (5) says:
Any reference in this Act to the working of coal or other minerals on any land, or to the carrying out of any other operations on any land, shall be construed as including a reference to the working of the coal or other minerals…
Apparently this is a reference to stocking sites, because one cannot get opencast coal without having stocking sites and


disposal places. Are these to be the subject of compulsory rights orders, or will they be referred to public inquiry in the same way as working sites?
This is often a matter of as much serious concern to the landowner and to the tenant as is the acquisition of the land for the working of the coal. In the East Midlands coalfield we have some peculiar stocking sites. For instance, coal is being taken 30 miles by road and clumped into a disused stone quarry in the Peak, in Derbyshire. It costs about 10s. a ton to put it down and it will cost a lot more to take it up again.
Are sites of this kind to be the subject of compulsory rights orders? I do not know what the Minister will have to say about this peculiar stocking site in the East Midlands, but I suggest to the Government that they should bear in mind that, in a time of recession this filling of holes and emptying them again might help to solve the unemployment problem. That should not be lost sight of.
One further thing I would urge on the Minister. I hope that where a farmer has suffered the inconvenience of opencast operations on his land, he will be spared the incongruity of a second dose, in the form of having his land confiscated for stocking sites or even having a second seam taken out after his land has been restored. It would also be appreciated by myself, and by my colleagues I am sure, if, in his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify Clause 5, which deals with limited compulsory rights orders.
Here, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) will permit me to join with those who have today congratulated him on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary. It is good to know that his rebellion against his senior colleagues during the recent crisis has not precluded him from joining the Front Bench. There must be something in the old saying that old poachers make good gamekeepers.
As I say, we would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would clarify Clause 5. Where there is a seam of coal on only part of a farm, the amount to be requisitioned ought to be the subject of very careful inquiry. When only half of a farm bears coal, the other half should not be used for carrying the overburden. I know of a case in my own constituency.

A seam of coal 4 ft. thick outcropped vertically on a farm, and a "dish" 120 yds. wide was made to get that thin seam of coal. It was only a 30-acre farm, and although the coal was deposited on only 10 acres of that farm another 18 acres were requisitioned for stowing the overburden.
The incongruous part of it was that nearby there was another farm 400 acres in extent, quite untouched, that could easily have taken that overburden and so have saved the little man from going out of business. Matters of that sort should be very carefully looked into so that every point of food production can be kept open, and the farms sustained.
I now turn to the Bill's provisions for compensation. When the necessary modifications are made, it will be possible to decide which claimant is entitled to compensation at any particular point for any loss or inconvenience. That is not very clear in the present Defence Regulations, and it will be a blessing to those affected to know to just what compensation they are entitled. Farmers are mostly affected by this provision.
Here I would interpolate a word of appreciation. Farmers are sensitive men, very sensitive about their rights and privileges and very vehement in their criticism when those rights and privileges are assailed. Yet, with all the great traditions and ideals embodied in the farming community, never have farmers shown such tolerance and public spirit as they have shown during the period when they have been afflicted with opencast mining operations. Scores of millions of tons have been got from under, our farm lands. The House and the country owes a debt of gratitude to the farmers for their co-operation in this matter.
I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and I were responsible for promoting opencast working, we often found ourselves in friendly conflict with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), then the Minister of Agriculture and a doughty champion of the farmer. I hope that there is still conflict between those responsible today, for it is only by conflict and argument between the respective Ministers that we can get the best for the country out of these proposals and out of opencast mining.
Inevitably, there has been some contention, but I have never known a case of dissatisfaction with the annual rent. Most disputes arise over the compulsory sale of cattle, the removal of chattels, the payment for grazing, the diversion of watercourses or the amount of terminal compensation. Much work has fallen to the Coal Board in dealing with claims, and I am sure that officials of the Board in the department affected must be looking forward with pleasure to the time when these items are provided for in the Bill.
So far, I have mentioned only tenants and owners entitled to compensation. What of the adjoining occupiers? There are cases where the adjoining occupiers have had temporarily to leave their houses because they could not bear the strain of the noise and the dust. Some provision ought to be made in the Bill to fit those cases, and they ought not to be left to the generosity of the Coal Board.
On behalf of the Opposition, I repeat that we accord the Bill general approval. We shall examine it very closely during the Committee stage. We hope to clear up some of the anomalies and make it a better Bill. This is the first, and possibly the last, piece of legislation on these lines. For that reason, when it finally leaves this House it ought to leave it with the unanimous approval of both sides.
One final word of advice to the Minister. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite), when referring this afternoon to the stocks of coal in the country, said that there were plenty of outlets for the stocks of opencast coal. If the hon. Gentleman is persona grata with the Paymaster-General and his senior Minister, he had better tell them where it can be sold. I and some of my colleagues believe that the present enormous stocks of coal, particularly of small coal, increase the unpopularity of opencast working; they create an undoubted impression that the demand for coal has lessened and there is no need to continue with these troublesome operations.
The Paymaster-General, in reply to recent Questions, and in the opening of his speech today, appeared not to be perturbed by the enormous stocks of coal in the country. Anybody who is not perturbed is out of touch with informed

opinion in the coal industry. We on this side advise him to reduce his stocks of coal, particularly small coal. If he cannot sell them, though he may convince this House he will have difficulty in convincing the country of the economic necessity to continue opencast coal mining for another ten years.

9.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made kindly reference to myself on my new office, and I certainly need their good wishes in inheriting a Bill of this complexity. I do not know whether it was an accident, but when I went to take possession of my room downstairs I found that some humorist had placed me with a room marked "Parliamentary Labour Party" on the one side and "Mr. Speaker's Chaplain" on the other side.
I have been closely concerned over the last twenty-five years or so with almost every Town and Country Planning Bill. This Opencast Coal Bill confirms me in my long-formed opinion that whenever dealing with land it takes six pages of small print to do what one wants to do and then the courts say that one has not done it. I can only hope, therefore, that as this Bill goes through Committee we shall, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said, have the constructive assistance of both sides of the Committee to improve it and that perhaps even occasionally ordinary Members may be able to combine against the lawyers, who are, of course, the common enemy of mankind.
I think I can best assist the House, first, by traversing very briefly certain points which arise on the Bill and then dealing as far as I can with some, but of course, not all, of the points that have been put to me, and then I should like to say some words generally on one aspect of the Bill—a problem which has been referred to several times by many speakers on both sides which is deserving of a little special consideration, namely, the question of amenities as affected by these operations.
It is necessary, first, to be quite clear what this Bill is. One or two contributions from both sides seemed not altogether to have borne in mind that this is a powers Bill. It does not directly affect, one way or the other, the amount of opencast working. Its primary object and its justification is to improve and


bring up to date the methods by which we operate.
On this side of the House, and, indeed, in the speech to which we have just listened by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal), it has been made clear that the general feeling is that it is quite intolerable to continue any longer working under Defence Regulations. We need not argue this in detail. I put only the one point that under Defence Regulations nobody, whether an individual, a local authority or anybody else, has a legal right to be heard by anybody. At this time of day, that is an intolerable situation which must be brought to an end.
What, however, would be the position if we did nothing else than bring the Defence Regulations to an end? There are two points to be borne in mind. There is no question that if we did nothing but bring the Defence Regulations to an end, there would be a substantial fall in the production by opencast working. This is not the occasion, nor would it be possible, to go very far in answering some suggestions which have been made in quite opposite senses from different parts of the House and to attempt to lay down a general principle on what we expect, in the future, the output from opencast workings to be. We on this side of the House are very sceptical anyway of these long forecasts and crystal gazing about what will be the situation in five years or ten years, but I do not think anybody can really seriously contend that there is no real prospect in the immediate future of some opencast coal being needed. The foreign exchange consideration seems to be conclusive in itself.
It is not realistic—I am not going into any argument at this stage as to why or whose blame it is, if it is anybody's blame—to suppose any longer that there is going to be any immediate or drastic increase in the output of deep-mined coal which would make it completely unnecessary in the immediate future to do without opencast work. Therefore, I do not think we need complicate our discussion by going further than saying that we cannot afford to do nothing if we get rid of the Defence Regulations because we cannot afford to do without, at any rate in the near future, some substantial contribution from opencast working.
The second point which I think must be stressed is that it is in any case wrong.

in our view at any rate, to give powers to operate by a process which involves buying land on a large scale when all we really want is to use it for a comparatively short time, and that is, of course, why we have introduced this novel process of compulsory rights orders, compulsory rights orders as we shall call them, corresponding to the compulsory purchase orders of which we have had only too much experience in our daily life.
I think the three main points we want to consider, if that be the background of our problem are: Is sufficient consideration being given in the new legislation to what is being done? Are the proposals for restoration being made reasonable? And are the compensation provisions fair?
As to sufficient consideration, it is sufficient for me at this late stage simply to remind the House that both prospecting and working require authorisation by the Minister, and at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way a public inquiry will be held, which gives everybody directly concerned—owners, occupiers, planning authorities—the right to be heard, which, of course, is an enormous advance on the present situation.
As for restoration, the code, to which much reference has been made, will, broadly speaking, be included in the authorisation. The deemed planning consent will contain the necessary provisions of the code. That code is by no means final. It is now the subject of discussions with interested parties. Some suggestions have been made that it should be included in regulations. This would not be the moment for any final decision to be taken on that. There are, I understand, very considerable technical difficulties, but it is a matter to which we must direct our attention in Committee.
As to compensation, this will no longer be arbitrary. It may be perfectly true that in many cases the present quite arbitrary system is working not too badly, but it has no rhyme or reason, and has been altered because we feel that we ought to try to find some rational basis upon which to pay compensation. I am not at this stage going into the various Sections under which that compensation can be paid, because we shall, of course, have to go into that in great detail at a later stage. But the general principle is important, and it is reasonably clear.
As far as possible, we are trying to put back everyone concerned to where he would have been if none of the operations had taken place. That, of course, is far from being the principle under compulsory purchase procedure. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, this is a much juster situation and a long-called for improvement. I am sure that it will commend itself to all on this side of the House, and I am pleased to see that it appeals to so many hon. Members opposite.
At least one hon. Member made the extremely valid point about the importance of speed in settling these matters. I would refer to the provisions in the Bill as it stands. We shall have to consider whether they can be improved. Firstly, the Order, without which prospecting cannot take place, must contain a time limit. There is no time limit actually stated in the Bill, but the Order must contain one, and that will make it impossible to have a right to go prospecting indefinitely, which if not exercised would seriously depreciate the value of the land. If nothing is done for six months, the compulsory rights order itself becomes null and void. Therefore, a serious effort is being made to prevent damage being done to land by things being initiated which are not followed up within a reasonable period.
As to occupiers, and I speak mainly of farmers, because I am advised that about 90 per cent. of the land concerned is agricultural land, the principle is that the occupier should be paid a rental compensation, because he still owes a rent to his landlord, and a calculated mitigated profit. There has been some discussion as to whether that mitigation is fair. One of my hon. Friends strongly stressed that it was, but some other hon. Members felt that it might be awkward to administer. I can quite see that it may be, and it is certainly a matter which we must consider. But the broad general principle when we are dealing with public money must be accepted by all of us—that it is not reasonable to pay somebody all the profits that he would have earned and leave him in a position where he either need to do no work at all or, if he does, he has all the advantage of it. Undoubtedly there may be complications in administration, but it is a matter which

we can well consider at a later stage in the progress of the Bill.
The owner of agricultural land has a choice. If he chooses a cash payment, which will be the difference between the value of the land as it is returned to him and what it would have been if no operations had taken place, that is the end of it. But he can, and probably in many cases will, choose a cost-of-works payment where agricultural land is concerned. This brings me to a point which was made by at least one hon. Member opposite. As it was pointed out, many of the things which are necessary to be done if the land is to be put back to its full bearing condition do not make themselves evident for a long time afterwards.
The question of drainage was referred to. In many cases it would clearly be a waste of money to start such work and then have to do it over again twelve months afterwards. Therefore, in many cases it will be to the advantage of everybody concerned to choose not a cash payment but a cost-of-works payment, which will be made when it is reasonable to do the work.
So much for the very rough survey of the general situation. Now I will answer briefly some specific points which have been put in the debate. The first I choose is an interjection made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), which was a kind of hors d'oeuvre before the main speech. My hon. Friend raised the point that the National Coal Board might become a large-scale farmer. The fair answer to that is two-fold. First, we have had a definite assurance from the Board that it intends, if it buys land which people offer—it cannot buy land otherwise under this Bill—to sell it when the work is finished.
Secondly, what would be the alternative? If it acts under the existing law, which is slow and awkward, the Board has to buy everything. Today it cannot get any land for work of this kind without becoming the owner. We are providing a way in which the amount of land which the Board will own when it has finished with it will be less, to the extent that it has acted under compulsory rights order procedure, and, when the work is finished, the land will return to its original owner.
There was a certain amount of discussion on the question of small coal in the speeches of several hon. Members, which, unless I have misunderstood it, seemed to me to be slightly misconceived. I am advised that the proportion of large coal from opencast mining is, if anything, slightly larger than from deep-mined coal. Of course, one cannot get the one without the other, so that it seems to me that the question of whether we have too much small coal in stock or too little is irrelevant to our discussion. In other words, if we get the same total quantity of coal, and it is all deep-mined, there will be more and not less small coal.

Mr. A. Roberts: According to figures of opencast mining last year, we produced about 3 million tons of large coal. Consequently, I suppose we saved a certain amount of dollars by not importing American coal. Yet it has been said here this afternoon that we import American machinery to work on the outcrop sites, so one thing balances the other.

Sir I. Horobin: I am coming to that point, so perhaps it would be more convenient if I were to follow the sequence of the debate. There were also a number of extremely important points raised by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). As far as I can, I will treat them together. As I understood the right hon. and hon. Members, they were rather against the period of ten years going into the Bill. They felt that for various reasons it was undesirable to limit the permanent legislation on this subject. To a certain extent they were answered by some other hon. Members on the same side of the House, of whom the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) was one. He stressed with great vigour and emotion the deplorable consequences which inevitably followed from a permanent continuation of opencast mining.
On this matter one has to try to strike a balance. If we have too short a period, all the arguments about the difficulties of contractors and so on become overwhelming. On the other hand, it is very difficult to see very far ahead. In about ten years' time the whole nuclear situation, for instance, will be very different from what it is now. Progress is so rapid that it may be completely transformed. Therefore, I think the balance of argument is in favour of saying, "We must

have some opencast mining for a reasonable period, but, in view of all the objections and difficulties which have been argued so forcibly in the debate, we can always have another look at the matter and it will be a simple procedure in ten years' time to alter our plans if we so decide."
This would perhaps be a convenient moment to take up the point about the dollar content as an argument against having any opencast coal. I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding here. While there is a great deal of dollar machinery, it is by no means true that all or even a large proportion of the machinery is bought with dollars. Another point which seems to me to be even more conclusive is that if, as has been argued very strongly on both sides of the House, the alternative to not having opencast coal is the importation of coal, that costs dollars too. Consequently, I do not think there is very much in the argument. It seems to me better to give ourselves a reasonable period and see how things work, and it will not be difficult in ten years' time, if we so decide, to alter our plans.
The question of disposal points and stocking grounds was argued at considerable length and was made a major point. First of all, it would be unwise and unfair to exaggerate the matter. I understand that a substantial number of these grounds are commercially held now and are not at risk. I understand that friendly negotiations are proceeding which are likely to lead to mutually satisfactory results, as the previous ones have done. Consequently, do not let us run away with the idea that all the operations of the National Coal Board are completely at risk.
The second point that we should bear in mind is that in any new undertaking, if the ancillary undertakings are part of the process of getting coal, the compulsory rights order procedure could apply. It is true that it would not apply where the disposal point and stocking ground is separate from the process of digging the coal.
The third point is that hon. Members on this side of the House at any rate feel that we want to limit compulsory powers as much as possible. We do not like to add to the number of people who can run about taking property from people


who do not want to part with it. We desire not to do it if we have not got to do it. There is a big difference from taking the land where the coal is, because one must have that land. If there is no coal there, it is no good taking it. However, the Board is not in the same position with regard to stocking points. If it cannot get one, it can probably get another. Therefore, the Board can go about the matter in the ordinary commercial way and enter into negotiations. The pressure on it to have compulsory powers is at least very much less cogent—I put it no stronger than that—than it is when it has to have the land where the coal is and cannot do with any other land.

Mr. Robens: About two-thirds of the present disposal sites are held under requisition and not by commercial agreements. Do I understand that after the passing of the Bill the Board will have to complete ordinary commercial negotiations on sites already working? If so, does that not mean that the Board can be held to ransom for the acquisition of disposal sites which it has already obtained under Defence Regulations and which are essential for the operation of opencast sites now being worked under Defence Regulations?

Sir I. Horobin: It is true that the Board must negotiate—about those sites which are not held commercially. I am saying that the Board is negotiating—already successfully in many cases—and my information is that in the majority of those sites which are still at risk negotiations with a reasonable prospect of a satisfactory termination are being conducted.

Mr. Robens: This matter is very important. This enables those who own the sites upon which the disposal units are situated to have an unequal bargaining power, inasmuch as they are in a very strong position to bargain with the Coal Board because they can stop output from more than one site to which the Board is committed. If the Coal Board is unable to negotiate on reasonably commercial terms as between a willing buyer and a willing seller for the continued use of the disposal points which the Board now has and which serve opencast sites which the Board now operates under Defence Regulations, will the Government provide the necessary compulsory

purchasing order or requisitioning order so that those disposal sites shall remain available for the completion of opencast operations on the sites obtained under the Defence Regulations?

Sir I. Horobin: No, I do not think that we could possibly be expected to do that. As I have a number of other matters with which to deal, I must leave it at that. I am advised that there is a reasonable prospect of fair negotiations in the bulk of the outstanding cases. We are not in favour of giving compulsory powers for the Board to have a specific site it is not geologically necessary as it is in the case of the coal itself.
I want to deal with a similar matter raised by an hon. Member opposite. He suggested that everything could be held up because any crank could put in an objection and force a local inquiry. Nobody disputes that there will be some initial loss of coal because of the provisions of the Bill. One cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. We are giving more protection to everybody and, although it will not be a continuing loss, in the initial stages there will be some loss.
However, again we must not exaggerate, and the hon. Member who made that point was under a misapprehension because only those persons directly concerned, either owner-occupiers or local authorities, have a right to object and force a local inquiry. It is true that if there is an inquiry, outside persons, such as those bodies dealing with amenities, are, in practice, always heard—and a very good thing, too. But if all the local authorities, owners and occupiers have come to an agreement and there are no objections, then nobody else can force an inquiry. They can simply communicate with the Minister or act through their M.P., and so on. I think it is a misconception to think that any crank who has any case at all can force into operation this rather cumbersome machinery of local inquiry.
The next point raised by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and other hon. Members was that on the whole there was a preference for the code to be put into regulations. This is a matter which, I think, requires careful consideration. I ought to warn the


House that I am advised that there are very serious technical difficulties. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a great difference between what can be put down when it is an informal document and what can be put down when the legal gentry are concerned and the rules of the House apply. It is not a matter upon which our minds are closed. It is conceivable—I put it no higher than that—that it may be possible to meet it in some way.
This question has been answered before, but I would like to answer it quite definitely again. It is this fear that in future—I know it has happened in the past—under these provisions people can be disturbed twice. It is categorically laid down in the Bill that once a C.R.O. has been applied to land another C.R.O. cannot be applied to it. I do not think we could have gone further. Under the new régime once is quite enough.
Then a point was made about allotments. At this stage I would only say that this is a matter upon which the Government may be tabling Amendments of its own, but in any case the very complicated legal situation is being sympathetically considered.
I have tried to answer a few of the main points, but I will take the last five minutes to say a few words on a matter upon which I hope many hon. Members share my own great interest and anxiety, namely, amenities. We shall have to give a great deal of careful attention to this aspect when the Bill is upstairs.
Let me go very briefly through the process. First there comes the prospecting, then the authorisation, and then the C.R.O. Prospecting is a much more serious business than in the case of electricity. With electricity one makes a survey and then goes away. With opencast coal mining, holes, trenches and so on are dug. I do not think we ought to allow ourselves to be too much bound by the precedents in the Electricity Acts. First, permission must be obtained from the Minister before prospecting can be carried out.
But the more important point, once the Defence Regulations are out of the way, is this: prospecting is a development which comes under the Town and Country Planning Acts and, therefore, it would be necessary to obtain planning permission. It is right that I should tell the

House that for reasons of speeding up—there is always a balance in these matters—it may well be that by the time the Defence Regulations come to an end there will be an amendment to the general development order which would not make it necessary to obtain individual planning permission.
Even if that does happen, that does not take away the power of the local planning authority to intervene, because under the existing law—I shall not go into the exact references—where anything in the general development order does not require specific planning permission, the relevant planning authority can make what is called an Article IV direction, which stops everything for the moment. The matter then has to go to the Minister. If he confirms it, that takes the operation out of the general development order and ordinary planning permission must be obtained. If, on the other hand, the Minister refuses it, at least the planning authority has had every opportunity of ensuring that its views are known.
In addition, twenty-eight days' notice has to be given, in which time it is possible to alert those concerned. The figure of twenty-eight days is one of the matters that might well be considered in Committee from the point of view of its being a sufficient length of time.
I have time to deal only briefly with the questions of authorisation and compulsory rights orders. It is the intention that they should go together. This will save time and expense. I also want to make it absolutely clear that while there is apparently some constitutional objection to providing, in a Statute, that one Minister shall consult another—there are a few precedents for it but they are considered to be bad ones—I can give an absolute assurance that, in all these matters, at the planning stage the very closest consultation will in practice take place between the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Power.

Mr. Ross: And the Scottish Office.

Sir I. Horobin: I cannot undertake to say that it will be carried out in Gaelic, but we shall do our best.

Mr. Ross: The language in the Bill is bad enough.

Sir I. Horobin: I have done my best to show that the broad structure of the Bill is not only a very great improvement upon what we have now but the only possible alternative, if we are to bring the Defence Regulations to an end. I hope that I have at least given interim replies to the main points which have been made—although I know that I have not carried conviction in regard to one. At any rate, I have done my best for the moment.
I hope I have shown that while these provisions can by no means be held to be perfect they are probably the best that we can make. At any rate, the vital question of amenities has not been overlooked. It is very much in the minds of those who have drafted and introduced the Bill, and it will be permanently in the minds of the Ministers who have to administer it. With those words I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman going to make no reference to the speeches which have been made complaining about the implications for Scotland?

Sir I. Horobin: That can much better be done when we have the advantage or the disadvantage of the presence of Scottish legal representation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38(Committal of Bills).

OPENCAST COAL [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84(Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, with respect to the working of coal by opencast operations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Minister of Power.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move,
That this House is of the opinion that effect should be given to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure relating to opposed Private Bills.
As the House is well aware, a special procedure is laid down when local authorities and other public bodies promote a Bill in Parliament. The Bill has to be deposited by a certain day in November. It has thereafter to be inquired into by two examiners to make certain that the regulations dealing with advertisements and notice to parties affected have been complied with, and copies of the Bill have to be sent to various Government Departments with plans and documents, and also to others. When this procedure is completed, about the beginning of the following February, the Bill is presented to this House for Second Reading.
Normally, Private Bills come to us in batches of three or four at the beginning of the sitting on Mondays to Thursdays. They are not then debatable. It only requires one hon. Member, sitting in his place and completely anonymous, to say "Object" and the Bill cannot be proceeded with on that day. The Chairman of Ways and Means brings the Bill up again on subsequent sitting days and, if the objection to it persists, he has to set it down for Second Reading at seven o'clock on a subsequent evening. That means that the business set down for that day has to be interrupted in order to take the Bill.
This involves local authorities and other public bodies in needless additional expense, because the real objection to any Bill is not in a sense taken on the Floor of the House; it is dealt with upstairs before the Select Committee when persons, organisations and bodies who feel aggrieved can appear, either in person or through counsel, and fight the thing out there. Nevertheless, up to now it has been, and still is, the rule for one hon. Member, who may or may not know quite a lot about the Bill, by the simple use of the word "Object" to hold that Bill up indefinitely. That, I repeat,


means a fair amount of additional expense to those who promote any Bill.
The matter came to a head a year or two ago and, as a result, the then Conservative Government set up a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses. Its terms of reference were
to consider what alterations, if any, are desirable in the practice and the Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to private legislation, having special regard to the desirability of lessening the expense at present incurred.
That Committee sat for several months. It had a great many meetings and some very high-powered witnesses were willing to appear and give evidence, including the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The Committee reported in May, 1955. It made 22 recommendations. The astonishing thing is that although the Report was issued nearly three years ago and although—I hope I carry the House with me here—it affects every hon. Member of this House, we have not yet had any debate upon it. No one to this day really knows what the sense of the House is on any one of those recommendations.
When some of us approached the present Leader of the House to ask whether a debate might be arranged, we were made to feel—I say this deliberately—that our request was unreasonable. In fact, those who saw him felt definitely non-U. when we were in his presence. We came away wondering whether we had asked for something which, quite frankly, was not possible and almost, I was going to say, obscene.
This is not good enough. In matters of this kind it is for the House to decide what procedure it should apply. We felt then, and we still feel, that the House should be given an opportunity to debate the recommendations of this Committee which, as I have said, sat for a considerable time and went into the whole question very thoroughly.
We frequently hear criticism of our procedure, and many people think that some of it is out of date. Recently, following a rather scathing leader in The Times, there has been correspondence in its columns, as I think most hon. Members are aware, and the general feeling seems to be, even amongst hon. Members who have written letters to The Times in the

last week or two, that something ought to be done to speed up the procedure and to bring the way we conduct our business more into keeping with modern times.
It is our view that many of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, and particularly that which we shall discuss in a minute, would have helped to improve the speed and the efficiency of the House in Private Bill procedure. Although, tonight, we are to deal with one particular aspect of that Committee's Report, there are other recommendations on which at some time the House ought to pass judgment. For example, the Committee made a recommendation for the abolition of town meetings and town polls, which are a public scandal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Those who followed the Press and read the recent case in Birmingham, where votes cost a good many shillings—

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the Motion which we are considering concerns solely the recommendations of the Committee relating to opposed Private Bills. I do not think that town polls or anything else in that context have much to do with the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Motion deals with opposed Private Bills. I should not like to rule a passing reference to such matters out of order altogether.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not intend to pursue that line. I was using it only as an illustration in pointing out that while, tonight, we are dealing with only one recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, there were others which have not been implemented and upon which, in my view, the House should at some time pass judgment. The House has not yet been given an opportunity to consider the Report at all, including the recommendations about town meetings and town polls, which I think should be abolished and which at present, where-ever they are held, amount almost to a public scandal and involve the ratepayers in considerable sums of money.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I am in some difficulty as to exactly what we are discussing tonight. My right hon. Friend said that we were


discussing only one recommendation, but the Motion on the Order Papers refers to
the recommendations of the Joint Committee.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are dealing with Private Bill procedure. My hon. Friend has not finished reading the Motion.
In my view, it would have been much better had we discussed the whole Report rather than have a discussion at this late hour on what, after all, is a relatively narrow issue, but the blame for that does not lie on this side of the House. The Government agreed to our having a discussion only on condition that we confined it to the terms of the second recommendation of the Select Committee, to which the Motion refers.

Mr. George Wigg: I must confess that this is an extremely novel doctrine—and my name is on the Motion—that the Government, presumably through the usual channels, should agree to the Motion being put down on the Government's notion as to how it should proceed. Surely the question of what is or what is not in order is a matter for you to decide, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and is not to be governed by any rubber-stamp opinion coming through the usual channels.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is governed by the Motion which has been put down, and which the House is now discussing.

Mr. Henry Usborne: On a point of order. Can you give a ruling on this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? What we should like to know is whether we are entitled, on this Motion, to discuss the procedure relating to opposed Private Bills. A Private Bill such as we are discussing does not originate in this House. The last one that concerned me originated in Birmingham, and was opposed in Birmingham before it reached here. Are we then entitled to discuss the nature of the opposition to that Private Bill before it actually reached the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Of course, it is not a Private Bill until it reaches the House.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. It is, no doubt, not a Private Bill until it reaches

the House, but something or other originates in Birmingham which comes here as a Private Bill, and a Committee which is inquiring into the procedure and practice of the House with regard to certain matters did hear evidence, and report on the question of the opposition to these, shall I say, inchoate Private Bills in the place where they originated—opposition in the form of town meetings and town polls. The Committee took a vote on that matter and came to a decision about it. I would submit that, in the ordinary sense of the procedure relating to opposed Private Bills, we must investigate their birth as well as their future progress: and that to investigate the health of the hen without some consideration of what happens when the hen is born—that is to say, the hatching of the egg—may lead to a misunderstanding and to a certain waste of time. I would suggest that while one no doubt wants to keep the main discussion to the particular points, it would be in order to refer, at any rate summarily, to the question of town meetings and town polls.

Mr. Usborne: Would you, therefore, also consider this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? If, as you said in answer to my first intervention, this thing cannot be a Private Bill until it reaches the House, can you explain how procedure Joint Committee on Private Bill procedure could have discussed, to the extent of two pages, what was clearly nothing to do with the Private Bill; and since the Motion before us on the Order Paper is to discuss that which the Committee recommended, namely, Clause 79, and includes this, how is it that you can fairly rule this out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There was a wider reference than that. The reference related to private legislation, not merely to opposed Private Bills.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Am I not right in thinking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this Motion deals with the recommendations printed in the Report in pages xx-xxiii? It is quite simple. We are just dealing with the recommendations.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If that is so, the Motion covers town meetings and town polls, because the Select Committee make a recommendation about both town meetings and town rolls.

Mr. Mitchison: If, in fact, we are entitled to discuss private legislation but not everything about Private Bills, what exactly is the difference between private legislation and Private Bills?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Committee was dealing with private legislation. The Motion before the House relates to Private Bill procedure in relation to opposed Private Bills.

Mr. Mitchison: But, with respect, the procedure relating to opposed Private Bills must include the statutory requirements about town meetings and town polls; otherwise, it would not have been within the Committee's purview to consider them, and that is not suggested. Surely it is part of the procedure to get them into being, as it were, in the way in which they are. What is opposed in a town meeting or a town poll, I would suggest, is a proposed Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The difficulty is that the Committee had rather wider terms of reference than those of the Motion now before the House. But I do not want to be difficult about this matter. Any passing reference to town polls would not be objected to by me.

Mr. Douglas Glover: May we have the matter clarified? It seems to me that a Select Committee can sit on the method of dealing with Private Bills, and that while part of its recommendation may concern only the procedure of the House other of its recommendations would involve legislation. The question of dealing with town polls, and so on, would involve legislation. Therefore, in our discussion of this matter tonight town polls are out of order, because it would involve legislation to alter that procedure. We are dealing with the procedure of the House as it exists at the moment.

Sir Peter Agnew: It will be within the recollection of the House that, during the last Session, there was a Private Member's Bill dealing with this very subject, called the Promotion of Bills Bill, which was extensively discussed both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and which failed to secure passage through the House. If we are now to have simply a repetition of that debate, shall we not be out of order?

Taking the terms of the Motion, when it speaks about opposed Private Bills it cannot possibly be deemed to refer to what goes on before a Private Bill reaches the House because, at that stage, nobody knows whether the Bill will be unopposed or opposed. Surely our discussion this evening should refer only to those Bills which are found, on arrival here, to be opposed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the question is one strictly relating to opposed Private Bills.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not quarrel with that at all, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am simply saying that, when we had the discussions with the Leader of the House, he agreed that we should have a debate of this kind, and I rather gathered from him—he will correct me if I am wrong—that we should confine it to this particular point which, quite frankly, is one of the main points of the recommendations made by the Select Committee and not yet implemented. I quite agree that town meetings and town polls will need legislation, although they are the subject of one of the recommendations. It cannot be done by any alteration of Standing Orders. The object of the Motion I am now moving, if it has the approval of the House, can be achieved by a change in Standing Orders.
While I have no desire whatever—far from it—to curtail what anyone else may wish to say, subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am, for my part, dealing with the one narrow point as to whether the House should continue in future to allow one hon. Member to say, "Object" to a Private Bill when it is brought forward for Second Reading at the commencement of business on any Monday to Thursday in the early part of the year, or whether we should now decide to alter our procedure to prevent that practice and its possible abuse.

Mr. E. Partridge: On a point of order. May I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) is saying now that this matter has not been discussed and, therefore, the opinion of the House is not known. Though he may speak for himself, a great many of us—I would say the


majority—have considered it at great length and know what our views are.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of argument.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I sincerely hope that other hon. Members have thought about it and have made up their minds. I was not saying that they had not. I was merely saying—if I am wrong, no doubt I shall be corrected—and I believe it to be within the recollection of everyone within the sound of my voice—that the House has not yet had an opportunity to debate this particular Report, certainly not this part of it. We have been given by the Government this opportunity, a very late one, to discuss it and, if possible, to get a majority of the House to agree to the recommendation made by the Select Committee in this particular direction and no other.
Those who have read the Report will have noticed that the number of Private Bills presented in the years 1947–48 to 1953–54 was, on an average, about 40 per Session; and those Members who have looked down the list of Private Bills which presently will reach us will have found that the number is about the same on this occasion. During that time, so we were told by witnesses who appeared before us, an average of about five or six Bills had to be debated at seven o'clock during those Sessions.
Although that may not seem to be many, there is the risk always that every one of the 40, or whatever the number it is, can be objected to. That means that the Chairman of Ways and Means would have to find time and interrupt business at a very congested part of the Session so that the Second Reading debates should be held. We hold the view—and the Select Committee, by a considerable majority, took the view—that that is not right and it is time that that procedure was changed.
The Chairman of Ways and Means, upon whom rests the duty to find time for these debates, was good enough to present a memorandum to the Joint Select Committee. In page 22, paragraph 5, of the Report, he said:
The numbers "—
that is, on an average, the number of occasions for which he had had to find

time for a Second Reading debate, which was about 9 per cent., during the period with which he was dealing—
may not appear to be significant, but with the increasing extent to which successive Governments have pre-empted the time of the House for their own business, the task of making arrangements to ensure that an evening is selected which suits all the interested parties has become steadily more difficult.
I should like hon. Members to bear that in mind. It is the evidence of the present Chairman of Ways and Means, who, as we all know, has occupied his high office with great distinction for a long time and has had a vast experience in this direction.
Those Members who are interested will also find that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give oral evidence before the Committee. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting from the evidence he gave, but it came out quite clearly during the time he was before the Committee that it is difficult for any Chairman of Ways and Means to fit in the Second Reading debates when the Government and the Opposition between them, in the early part of the year, have such heavy calls on their time.
It came out quite clearly, not, perhaps, from the evidence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but certainly from the evidence of others competent to judge, that, I will not say always, but very often, Members say "Object" without any real knowledge of what a Bill contains. Sometimes, of course, most of us are quite aware of what is in a Bill and objections are raised from all over the House, and very properly so, because it is felt essential that a Second Reading debate should take place. It does, however, happen, and we were given evidence that it has happened more often than one would care to believe, that objection is taken without foundation.
I should like to read a short paragraph from the Report of the Committee which deals with this point much better than I could possibly do. It is in page vi of the Committee's Report, as follows:
Mr. Abraham, now Clerk of Financial and Miscellaneous Committees and sometimes Clerk of Private Bills in the House of Commons"—
incidentally, he has been in the service of the House for forty years—
drew the Committee's attention to the view long held by Chairmen of Ways and Means


(including Mr. (afterwards Speaker) Shaw Lefevre and Mr. (afterwards Speaker) Lowther and by otter eminent members (including Sir Winston Churchill when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1909) that the House of Commons is not, on Second Reading, normally in a position to come to a considered conclusion on the merits of a private Bill, because at that stage it has not sufficient knowledge of the issues to form a proper judgment. The Committee are of opinion that there is much to be said for this contention so far as the great majority of private Bills are concerned, although there are obviously some Bills where the issues are fully apprehended from the time they are introduced, for example, Bills seeking county borough status or the extension of boundaries.'
These are weighty witnesses. Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre was giving evidence on the business of the House in 1854, over a hundred years ago. Mr. Speaker Lowther was giving evidence before a Select Committee on Private Business in 1902, over fifty years ago. If we add to those very knowledgeable witnesses the present Chairman of Ways and Means, who, in his evidence before the recent Select Committee, acknowledged the difficulty, and the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who also took the same view, I think that we have a formidable team, and one to which we should pay some attention.
I think it is permissible—one cannot prove it—to believe that if other Chairmen of Ways and Means and former Speakers of this House had been called to give evidence before similar Select Committees they probably would have come to the same conclusion and given evidence in the same sense.
In page vii of the Report we come to what the Select Committee proposes. It is the suggestion of the Select Committee that I desire to commend to the House. Having examined the evidence some of which I have indicated, it came to this conclusion, contained in paragraph 18
The Committee have given considerable thought to this matter. They have throughout been anxious if possible not to suggest any change in procedure which would restrict the freedom now enjoyed by Members to insist, singly if necessary, upon a Second Reading debate on any private Bill. They have, however, reluctantly come to the conclusion that the present procedure can no longer be justified. They believe that it should no longer be permissible for a single Member to block the Second Reading of a Bill at the time of unopposed private business by the simple device of saying Object.' They therefore recommend, subject to the exceptions mentioned below, that Mr. Speaker should in all cases declare the

Second Reading carried unless a reasoned amendment to the motion for the Second Reading stands on the Order Paper signed by at least six Members. They further recommend that this rule should not apply if the Chairman of Ways and Means indicates at the time the Second Reading is first moved that the Bill raises a new and important principle.
The Committee then states what the exceptions are. They are two:
Bills seeking county borough status or extension of boundaries; Bills promoted by nationalised authorities in the case of which it may be the practice that the Second Reading should provide the occasion for a general debate on the affairs of the authority.
To go back, the main recommendation is a reasonable one, and it is one which has obviously had the sanction of Speakers like Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre over a hundred years ago when business in the House was nothing like what it is today and when hon. Members had far more time for debates of this kind than we get now.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that when it used the words "reasoned amendment" the Select Committee of which he was Chairman had in mind that it would be impossible for any Member, whether or not supported by other Members, to put down an Amendment for complete rejection on Second Reading of a Bill of this kind? Was it to be a reasoned Amendment affecting part of a Bill, or was it considered that it might be possible for Members to reject entirely the Second Reading?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Committee, of course, makes the suggestion, but it would be for the House either to accept it in its entirety or in part, or to reject it altogether, or to make some other arrangements.
I think that the Select Committee felt that the present procedure was unrealistic and that in modern times, when a Chairman of Ways and Means has so much difficulty in arranging Second Reading debates, procedure should be adopted to prevent capricious objection which has no real feeling behind it and which is sometimes directed towards a Bill about which the hon. Member who objects knows very little.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is on the point that I am trying to make. Does


he visualise that under the proposed procedure it would be impossible for a reasoned Amendment for rejection of a Bill to be put down by hon. Members entirely without any reasons being given? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is sometimes rather important that hon. Members should have the power to reject a Bill completely without having to give the reason for so doing?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Again, I can only say that it would be for the House to decide what form an Amendment must take in order that it should be accepted at the Table.
Although I was a member of the Committee and am in duty bound moving the recommendation as it stands, having thought about it since I am not wedded to this form of words. I am not wedded to six as being the quorum for putting down an Amendment and I am not necessarily wedded to the view that the Amendment put on the Order Paper must be a reasoned one, although there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment being one which gives some reason why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
However, it would be for the House itself to decide what form the Standing Order should take and what general rules Mr. Speaker should follow when applying the Standing Order. At the moment I am simply moving what the Select Committee decided, and if, tonight, we can get the House to agree to accept the principle I, for my part, am not so much worried about the way it is put into effect. But I feel, and feel profoundly, that the time really has now arrived when it should be impossible for one hon. Member just to say "Object", sitting in his seat and not even standing up, thus causing local and other public authorities a great deal of expense and leading the House to waste a good deal of time and trouble by having Second Reading debates on matters which can best be discussed before a Select Committee upstairs.
I hope, therefore, that although, at first glance, it might appear that we are asking the House to rob itself of a long-sustained right, on reflection most hon. Members will realise that they are not really losing a right. They could still object, but in future they would have to object on proper grounds and in proper form.

10.34 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Perhaps I might begin by explaining why I am intervening in the debate. As Chairman of Ways and Means I exercise a general supervision over Private Bills during their passage through the House. In particular, I am given powers under the Standing Orders to ensure that the House considers and disposes of all Private Bills whether objection is taken or not. I would emphasise, however, that I am not concerned with the merits of Private Bills. That is a matter for the House. My only concern is to ensure that the practice and the Standing Order in regard to Private Bills are observed and that the supporters and opponents obtain a full and fair opportunity of putting their cases before the House.
As Chairman of Ways and Means, I should like to express my gratitude to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and, in particular, to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who was Chairman of the Committee. The Committee sat through the best part of two Parliamentary Sessions and made a number of valuable recommendations. The Committee made its Report over two years ago, and since that time a great deal of work has been done by the Officers of both Houses to give effect to many of the Committee's recommendations.
I should like to indicate shortly what action has been taken on those recommendations which touch the responsibilities of the authorities of both Houses. In taking action on these recommendations, priority was given to those which would directly reduce the cost of private legislation. The most spectacular saving has been achieved, by carrying out recommendation No. 9, namely, that duplication of the minutes of evidence taken before opposed Private Bill Committees should, in general, be substituted for printing. The Standing Orders of both Houses were amended accordingly on 21st February, 1956, and the resultant saving to promoters during last Session, when comparatively few Bills were opposed in Committee, was approximately £3,000. In a normal year that amount would be about double.
Smaller savings resulted from a review, in accordance with another recommendation of the Joint Committee, of the


existing arrangements for printing Private Bills and Private Acts; and, following a proposal made by the Officers of another pace and myself, this saving has been divided equally between the Stationery Office and the promoters of Private Bills.
Fees charged by both Houses have been reviewed and synchronised, and modernised lists of agents' charges have now been approved by Mr. Speaker and by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Finally, I agreed with the late Lord Chairman, Lord Drogheda, that the Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to Private Business should be reviewed by the Officers of both Houses in the sense of recommendations Nos. 17 and 18 of the Report of the Joint Committee, which will, of course, take some time. Recommendations such as those relating to town meetings and polls which need legislation are, of course, no affair of mine.
The actions taken have modernised and serviced the machinery of private business and have made its operations both less expensive and more efficient. I am sure that the whole House will approve of this achievement. However, the proposal which has been put forward tonight, the effect of which is to modify the existing procedure in this House for objecting to private Bills on Second Reading, is clearly more controversial. Indeed, the Joint Committee itself was not unanimous on this matter. Although it adopted without a Division the paragraphs of its Report embodying this proposal, it divided on an Amendment which, if carried, would have had the effect of preserving the existing procedure.
May I remind the House of the exact words of the Committee's recommendation:
In the House of Commons, subject to certain exceptions"—
this has already been read, but it is very important—
Mr. Speaker should in all cases declare the Motion for Second Reading carried unless a reasoned Amendment to the Motion for Second Reading stands on the Order Paper signed by at least six Members; this rule should not apply if the Chairman of Ways and Means indicates at the time the Second Reading is first moved that the Bill raises a new and important principle.
The Joint Committee goes on to explain that the exceptions to which it refers

—these are the ones to which the Chairman of Ways and Means would not be called upon to deal with—are Bills promoted by nationalised industries and Bills seeking county borough status or extension of boundaries. Since the war these Bills have given rise to approximately one-third of the debates held on the Floor of the House on Private Bills, and under the Joint Committee's proposals they would still attract the present procedure.
As regards other Private Bills, the Joint Committee recommends that a reasoned Amendment signed by not fewer than six Members should be required to force a debate on the Private Bill unless the Chairman of Ways and Means declares that a new and important principle is raised. I am opposed to this recommendation.
In the first place, it would remove from the individual Member the right to object to a Private Bill. His rights would thus be more restricted in relation to a Private Bill than to a Public Bill, because a reasoned Amendment to reject a Public Bill may be put down by a single Member. A Member's duty to scrutinise a Private Bill is at least as important as his consideration of Public Bills. Erskine May defines private legislation as
…legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons—including individuals, local authorities, statutory companies, or private corporations—sometimes in excess of or in conflict with the general law.
If this definition is accepted, it seems wrong to put difficulties in the way of a Member who finds an objectionable provision in a Private Bill. This provision might affect only his own constituency, and even if he found five other Members willing to help him, the Motion which they would be called upon to sign might well deal with a matter in which they were not interested. This would seem to be an undesirable practice.
Again, a Member may have great difficulty in finding five other Members to support him. Under the existing procedure, the pressure of a single Member may oblige the promoters of a Private Bill to alter an objectionable provision; and it seems wrong that a Member should be prevented from exercising his constitutional rights merely because he is unable to find five supporters.
Secondly, the recommendation does not, in my opinion, do justice to the flexibility of the existing procedure. It would be wrong, for instance, to assume that because a Private Bill is objected to at 2.30, an evening debate necessarily takes place. Not all Members may be aware of the close attention with which proceedings on private business at 2.30 are studied by Officers of the House and Parliamentary Agents. The full extent of the opposition to a Bill is quickly identified, and negotiations between the objecting Member and the Parliamentary Agent for the Bill are at once begun. It frequently happens that, as a result of these negotiations, an objection can be settled and the Bill allowed to go to Committee without further objection.
Promoters thus derive benefit from the existing procedure. So do Members. Many Members will have had the experience of being requested at short notice by an outside body or person to look into a particular provision in a Private Bill. The procedure of objecting at 2.30 is a quicker and more convenient method of discharging this obligation than that of collecting five other signatories and giving notice of Motion. Once a Motion has gone down, attitudes tend to harden, as all hon. Members will be aware. I am afraid that if at any stage in the negotiations a Member is required to put down a Motion backed by five other names those negotiations would be less fruitful, and the number of Second Reading debates on Private Bills might well increase.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley made some play with my evidence. I do not think that he quite did me justice. My point was not to avoid the seven o'clock debates, but the difficulties that I have to keep the Standing Orders. It may appear simple on paper but, as he knows, it is not as simple as all that. The amount of to-ing and fro-ing that I have to do before a seven o'clock debate is nobody's business.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry if I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. My regard for him is so strong that it is the last thing that I would want to do. What I wanted to say was that he had stressed the enormous difficulty that he

has in getting evenings for these debates, and he has now borne out what I said.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: That is perfectly true. But this might add to my difficulties and increase the number of seven o'clock debates. Once the matter goes on the Order Paper it is much more difficult, as we all know, to get it agreed to.
My last criticism is perhaps the most important. The Joint Committee recommend that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be empowered to decide whether a Private Bill raises a new and important principle and, therefore, whether a debate on Second Reading is appropriate. But if this procedure were adopted the Chairman would be obliged to concern himself with the merits of Private Bills, and, as I have already pointed out, it is not the function of the Chairman to consider the merits of Bills.
In any case, it is difficult to see how he would decide what was a new and important principle in a Private Bill. Apart from extension Bills, Bills for county borough status and Bills promoted by nationalised industries, almost all the Bills which are nowadays debated in the House are Bills promoted by local authorities. If the Chairman were called upon to decide whether a particular power sought by a local authority raises a new and important principle, the exercise of his discretion would undoubtedly conflict with the non-party character of the office of Chairman of Ways and Means. It could not be avoided.
Under the present system the power to debate a Private Bill lies with the Members, and I am not aware that this power has been abused. It might be suggested that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in objecting to the Second Reading of every Private Bill, abused the procedure, but the hon. Member's ultimate objective was legitimate, even if his methods were unusual. Although the existing procedure is vulnerable, it is preferable, in my view, to the suggested alternative of requiring a Motion to be put on the Order Paper, signed by six Members. For all these reasons, I cannot advise the House to accept this recommendation.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether


this procedure is so very unusual? There was, I believe, a precedent which was put to him in Question 286 in page 35 of the Report of the Joint Committee. It was:
I am right, am I not, that in our time there has been a group of Members who made a regular habit of objecting to nearly all Private Bills; Sir Herbert Williams used to object to a great many?
The right hon. Gentleman's answer was:
A great many, not all.
Perhaps there is the difference that he objected not to all but only to a great many, whereas my hon. Friend has been even more comprehensive. Otherwise, there was a similarity.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: That is true. The late Sir Herbert Williams used to do that in quite a big way, but he was a very energetic man and took a great deal of trouble about it. If I had any criticism, it was that he had a group of people, who called themselves "Active Back Benchers", who knew nothing about them but told me that they would block Private Bills and when I asked them why they said that it was because Herbert Williams had told them to do it.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to urge the House to take some action in this matter. The Select Committee spent a very considerable time in trying to reduce the expenses and the time spent by people promoting Private Bills in this House, and, as we have just been told, the majority of those promoters are local authorities. Consequently, if their money is wasted or unnecessarily spent, it affects the ratepayers concerned. The more we can succeed in reducing the expense and the delay, the better service we shall be giving not just to corporations as such but to the people living and paying rates in the places concerned. I was very glad indeed to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that so much had already been done in that direction.
This is not so much a question of direct expense as one of delay, although the delay involves expense. But we were told, rightly, that when this happens the objector is usually identified and negotiations take place, and so on. If the objection is constantly repeated that involves a whole number of attendances.
I suggest to the House that there is a considerable number of Private Bills which cone forward, many of them from local authorities, some from other people, to which no reasonable objection could be taken.

Major Legge-Bourke: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, it is a matter of opinion, but I wonder whether even the hon. and gallant Member would find it possible to object on principle to some of the Bills which at the moment, for instance, are on the list of Private Bills coming forward. Perhaps I do not have as acute a sense of principle as the hon. and gallant Member, but I should find it impossible to object to a number of them, particularly the small ones.
Some are promoted by people other than local authorities, possibly limited companies which are incorporated by charter and which want some reasonable and commercial extension of their powers. I must say that if there is objection to all of them, then I cannot feel that the impression made on either local authorities or the public can be very good. Nor can I believe, to put it frankly, if with some diffidence, that the impression can be one worthy of the best traditions of the House. If we had to defend ourselves on this matter before public opinion, we might find it difficult to do so.
There is no doubt—and let us face the facts and try to be reasonable in this sort of matter—that there have been cases, one or two of which have been mentioned tonight, in which hon. Members have objected to a whole bunch of Bills without having the least idea what was in them. That was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means himself in his evidence before the Select Committee. I quote from page 34 of the Report. He was asked whether, on
…the procedure whereby a private bill becomes objected to, any Member can object on the Second Reading motion?—Yes. Sir.
276. He has to give no reason at all?—No, Sir.
277. So that you can get purely factitious opposition, or some purpose which may have nothing whatever to do with the Bill?—Yes, Sir.
278. By people who never have any intention of putting down a petition or anything of the kind?—That is so.


On the following page there is the reference to
…a group of Members who made a regular habit of objecting to nearly all Private Bills…
There was one hon. Member, unfortunately no longer with us, who used to object to a great many.
I appeal to hon. Members who know what has happened on these occasions not to take refuge in saying that in every case an hon. Member who objects to a Bill really knows to what he is objecting. I am well aware and, if hon. Members are straight about it, they are well aware, too, that a great many objections are made not for that reason at all, or, indeed, for any reason connected with the Bill. Is that quite fair? The fairness to the petitioners, particularly local authorities, has to be considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is only fair to say that while no one was more of a thorn in my side than the late Sir Herbert Williams he always had reasons for objecting. It was not blocking for frivolous reasons, although some of his hon. Friends had no idea why he was doing it; but he knew what he was doing.

Mr. Mitchison: Let us leave this person out. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, both as regards his hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), he certainly agrees with me that there have been cases in which hon. Members have objected to Private Bills without knowing anything about them.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: I supported the hon. Member for Dudley at the end of my speech. I explained that although his methods were unusual he got what he wanted.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think that there is any difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself on the facts. It is a matter within the knowledge of every hon. Member. I simply appeal to hon. Members to consider what actually happens. If they can assure me that they know perfectly well that everyone who objects to a Bill always knows what he is objecting to, and why, I will accept their opinion in that sense, but I am not sure that many Members will

be able to do so. I take leave to express my own opinion. There are quite a number of cases in which I believe—and some in which I know—that Bills have been objected to for reasons quite irrelevant to the character of the Bills in question.
If that is the position—and it is rather probable when wholesale objection is taken to one Bill after another—it is not a very creditable one. I respectfully agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means that in this matter one has to balance, on the one hand, the convenience of promoters and fairness to them—particularly local authorities—with, on the other, the rights of hon. Members who may have had short notice; who may know that the Bill is objectionable to the majority of their constituents but may not, at the moment when they first hear of it, he well acquainted with the reasons.
It is a question of balance between the two considerations, but I do not think that the right answer is to say. "We will come down entirely in favour of the present practice", more especially when we have had criticisms, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, from a number of people, some of whom have subsequently held your office, Mr. Speaker; another of them being one of the most distinguished Parliamentarians that have lived in this country for a long time—the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—and all of them taking objection to this practice and, indeed, taking the matter rather further and saying that it happens in the vast majority of cases.
I respectfully agree that a Bill ought not to be objected to on Second Reading in this House, but that objections ought to be taken in Committee. I agree that there are exceptions, but starting with that. I wonder whether it is not possible to take some action.
I make one suggestion, which I made in the form of an Amendment on the last occasion when this matter was on the Order Paper but which, having regard to the character of the Motion and the way in which my right hon. Friend was going to move it, I thought it better not to put formally on the Order Paper on this occasion. It seems to me reasonable that a first objection should be


taken in that way. If there is a case for negotiations; if the hon. Member's constituents or he himself feels that the promoters have not really given the matter sufficient consideration or publicity, in spite of the statutory precautions for that purpose—which are very considerable—it would be reasonable to let him object in that way once, but to allow him to go on objecting without reason given, or possibly for some reason alien to the character of the Bill, is surely too much.
If that is so, what ought to be asked of him? I would not have thought that he ought to be asked to give any detailed reason. If he were to say that he did object to the Bill, and took the trouble to put an Amendment on the Order Paper to that end, I would regard it as better than nothing. I would like him to go a little further and get some support, but if, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means—which I greatly respect—he ought not to be asked to get any support, then let him at least be obliged to put down an Amendment. If he can give his reason I should think that it would be preferable that he should do so. I should have thought that there was no great difficulty in drafting an Order in a form which would enable him either to object generally or, if he had a special reason, to indicate it. Surely there must be very many cases in which hon. Members objecting to a Bill object not to the whole Bill but to some Clause in it or perhaps some principle in it which they feel to be wrong.

Sir James Duncan: In that case an Instruction is put down.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree, but that is a later stage. We have to reach that stage. If that is to be done, then there is no difficulty about putting something of that sort down at this earlier stage.
All I am suggesting to the House is that, on the one hand, we should be fair to the promoters of the Bill—and I do not think we are being fair to them at present—and, on the other, we should not deprive hon. Members of any opportunity or any right which they themselves would consider it fair to exercise.
I have put forward two suggestions and I will make one further observation

before I conclude. I may be wrong, but I can find nothing definite in the Standing Orders about this practice. There are provisions about times and about unopposed and opposed Bills, but there is no provision which says in terms that all one has to do is to sit here and murmur "Object" loudly enough to be heard. It is not a question, therefore, of amending a Standing Order—

The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is the practice of the House. It is not in the Standing Orders.

Mr. Mitchison: That is exactly what I thought. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. This is, therefore, a question of introducing a Standing Order, not of amending a Standing Order. I do not know the history of the practice. It is obviously fairly long standing. How far it is a recommendation and how far it is not is for the House to judge, but what we are asking is a very small concession and, I suggest, a reasonable concession to people to whom we owe a duty and, among others, to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have lately been somewhat critical of the procedure of the House in matters of perhaps greater weight than that which we are considering now.

11.03 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am sorry to delay the House at this hour, for I realise that this subject is to some extent specialised. I am sorry that some hon. Members may find me tiresome in rising to speak now, but I want to say a few words if only because I have had some experience of being Chairman of Select Committees which have considered opposed Private Bills. It so happens that I have had the British Transport Commission Bill in the last three successive years.
Underlying the debate so far has been the fact that, on the whole, hon. Members believe that private legislation of this kind is a good deal less important than Government legislation. I have always been in considerable doubt about that. What I like about private legislation is that, for a change, it enables people to do things instead of enabling the Government to prevent people from doing things which they want to do. To that extent I am always sympathetic towards private legislation.
Turning to the recommendation of the Committee over which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) presided with such ability, I am convinced that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is absolutely right when he says that we should be extremely careful before we impose upon him or his successors the duty of deciding on the merits of a Bill or anything approaching that. It is important we should avoid asking him to decide whether any Private Bill introduced raises a new question of major principle. It seems to me that that would be a dangerous thing to ask him to do if we are to preserve, as I hope we always shall, the complete impartiality of the occupant of the Chair of Ways and Means.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that at the end of my speech I indicated that I was not wedded to that part of the recommendation. I moved it only because it is the whole of the recommendation which the Committee made, but for my part I should be willing to drop it, although I may add as a rider that the Chairman of Ways and Means has extremely good advice behind the Chair and it is not necessarily his decision to which he may have to come.

Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that—

The Chairman of Ways and Means: I do not get political advice.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not political, no.

Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman himself said, but I also appreciate that in a Committee of this kind there are, obviously, some differences of opinion even though a unanimous report is finally produced. But I think that we should be very careful before imposing on Chairmen of Ways and Means, or on the holders of other great offices of this House, the obligation of deciding upon merits which essentially would, sooner or later, involve party considerations.
A matter very much brought out in what has been said tonight is whether or not it is desirable for an ordinary back bencher to have the right just to say "Object" and so delay the passage of

a Private Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made it very clear that he was not stressing the expense occasioned to local authorities by the delay caused when a Bill is about to achieve its Second Reading. He questioned whether or not it was right to delay the local authorities getting the Bill to the Committee stage. As I understood him, he stressed the delay rather than the expense. I am glad that he did, because I do not think that that expense is really very great.
What I do think is extremely important is that a back bencher should have the right to prevent a piece of legislation that might easily affect his own constituency, if nobody else's, going through without question. That right would be sacrificed if the recommendation was accepted. It would mean that a Member who found a piece of legislation was being introduced that would adversely affect his own constituency would be virtually powerless to do anything about it unless he could get six backers, and I do not think it is fair to expect those backers—who are, in any case, very busy men—to get down to the details of what will happen in the Member's constituency.—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: But his own constituency or groups, or whoever it might be within the constituency, would have the complete right to petition, which would be much more effective than the Member making a speech.

Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. If his aim is to save local authorities expense, I would say that it is infinitely less expensive for the Member representing the constituency to get up and say that he objects than it is for the local authority to prepare a petition. To that extent, I would say that it is very important—and the smaller the authority the more important it is for the back bencher to have the right to be able to object to a Private Bill.
There is another important consideration. Every day we get a large bundle of Order Papers, including Questions for the day, and on a separate piece of paper there is the private legislation which has been put down for consideration. Human error being what it is, that legislation sometimes get overlooked, and sometimes at the last minute emergency action has


to be taken. It may be that had there been time, or if the Member had noticed it, he could have consulted the Parliamentary Agents for the promoters. There will be occasions when he will not have time to do that, in which case his only opportunity before the Bill goes to Committee is to say "Object". There are, therefore, many reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is absolutely right in saying that we should not accept this recommendation of the Joint Committee.
Finally, perhaps I may say that, in my experience at least, instructions on Second Reading are not altogether satisfactory when the Measure comes to the Committee, and I would agree with the quotation produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Collie Valley from the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee. It is really undesirable, in general, that the House should arrive at opinions about a Bill on Second Reading before it has heard all the evidence. I realise that there is something somewhat, contradictory in my saying that, but I still think it very important that we should still have that right. Occasions will arise when it is perfectly obvious that there is some matter which should be objected to on principle on Second Reading. If it were successfully carried it might very well prevent the Bill going any further, and that would save money for the local authorities or whoever was promoting the Bill.
If our aim is to try to ensure that local authorities and others promoting Private Bills are not put to unnecessary expense, we shall find, I believe, after taking and weighing carefully all the pros and cons, that less money would, on the whole, be wasted by rejecting the Motion than by accepting it.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but since my actions have been, not called in question, but mentioned, perhaps I might explain that my view is that the reform of the procedure of the House should be carried as far as it can be by consent. It is perfectly clear, now that we have heard the views of the Chairman of Ways and Means tonight, that the tide has gone as far forward as it can go at the moment. I would, therefore, think that my right hon. and hon.

Friends would be well advised to call it a day and not press the Motion to a Division.
I do not regret taking the step I did in opposing every Bill, and I say quite plainly that I should do it again if it were necessary. At the moment, however, I believe that the procedure is working much more smoothly than it did. Of course, I do not quite share the old-world view—if I may say it with respect—of the Chairman of Ways and Means; nor do I share the completely old-world views of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). When I took the action I did in 1954, it was perfectly clear that there were influences at work in the House operating on Private Bill procedure which not only influenced what happened to a Bill when it came here, but which also influenced people before a Private Bill even got on the stocks. One has only to look at the influence of municipal advertising.
When I adopt a certain course of action, I try to do a little research beforehand. I was convinced that there were influences at work here that were not wholesome in their effect, and I therefore blocked all the Bills in order to focus attention on them and force the Government to do something about it; that is, to set up a Select Committee. That Select Committee has done a very useful job, and the influences to which I refer do not now operate.
I feel that we should be wise to leave it at that. The procedure has been to some extent simplified. The Chairman of Ways and Means is not quite right: I have not got all I wanted. I have got only some of it. But it will do for the time being, and later on, perhaps, we may start again.
In my view, we have gone as far as we can. We should be well advised to leave it as it is. I am influenced by what has been said, that if we adopt a new procedure it might result in greater complication in finding time at 7 o'clock. It might. Therefore, perhaps, we might let it go and see how it works, Of course, if there are further abuses at any time there will be opportunity again for objecting. One of the weaknesses in the thinking of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, for whom I have a great respect, is this: he said


that any hon. Member can stand up and object. Hon. Members do not stand up to object; they sit down and object, and in some cases they even get some other "mug" to come and do the objecting. That has happened. The process has not always been one of sweetness and light.
I would go so far as to say that there is no more disgraceful episode in the history of the House of Commons than the operation of the Private Bill procedure during the last 150 years. Great fortunes have been made. Blocking Private Bills has feathered the nests of many. But that is not true today. Reform having gone as far as it can, I am extremely glad I took the step I did. I hope very much that it will never be necessary to do it again, but if it is—well and good: I shall do it.
I have always thought it was the job of the Leader of the House on these occasions to be present and to advise the House. I agree that the present Leader of the House seems to be unaware that the House of Commons is not his personal property but that he is its servant. He has treated the House with scant respect all through the negotiations on this matter, and the fact that he is not present tonight is a piece of gross impertinence.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Since this Commission reported two and a half years ago, and since the Government have not apparently bothered to find time to let us debate it in all that time, and then put it on only as second business, I do not think Government supporters have any reason to complain if we take an hour or two of their time at this late hour. One cannot amend the procedure of Private Bills, except with virtual unanimity and agreement on both sides, and it is clear tonight that this Motion as it stands on the Order Paper and as it has been moved, would not get by. I think it could be supported as it is printed on the Order Paper. As printed, it asks the House to accept the recommendations of the Committee—recommendations in the plural. But, as it was moved, it was apparently proposed that only one—a comparatively minor one, dealing with the objection on the nod at 2.30—should be carried or dealt with.
I think that the procedure, in which I have had some part to play myself, whereby a Private Bill is objected to by one person at 2.30, is pretty absurd. But I also think the procedure on Private Bills, from their genesis to their conclusion, is pretty absurd all along the line, and that one cannot really change one element of the procedure in this unless one is prepared to change many others. For example, one of the most ridiculous parts of this archaic procedure is the apparent necessity by which the corporation seeking powers prepares a Bill, has then to put it to the town meeting and, if it gets objected to there, has then to put it to a town's poll where it can be thrown out, as happened in Birmingham a few days ago, when nine Clauses were thrown out by a very small minority of people. If objectors in Birmingham, a small handful—scarcely two per cent.—more than half of whom did not know what they were objecting to, can object at that stage, it seems to me perfectly—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but reading the Motion, I think that it relates to our procedure in this House, and an opposed Private Bill means a Private Bill that has been opposed in this House. At the stage with which the hon. Gentleman is now dealing—the town meeting and the town poll—it is not really a Bill from our point of view; the Bill has not come into existence in a Parliamentary sense. It may be a draft Bill or a proposed Bill, but I do not think it is within the terms of this Motion.

Mr. Usborne: I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, after all, the Motion on the Order Paper does say that effect should be given to the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Included in those recommendations, No. 22, is this: "Resolutions should be introduced to abolish town meetings and polls."

Mr. Speaker: But the Motion is not on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, but those recommendations relating to opposed Private Bills, and I think the words "opposed Private Bills" in this context must be read to mean Private Bills opposed in this House. What we mean by "a Bill in this House" is a Bill that has been introduced in this


House, and not a draft in the hands of a local authority.

Mr. Usborne: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I must accept your Ruling, and I will merely say that one of the reasons—and I suppose that I am here entitled to say it—why I think it illogical to wish to remove the right of one hon. Member to object is that it is the parallel of a right which is apparently only quite absurdly granted to electors in the borough before the Bill reaches Parliament. I say, therefore, that until we can get all the absurdities, right from the genesis to the conclusion, changed and amended and the whole procedure altered, it is absurd to try to tinker with one very small part of a complicated and almost unmanageable procedure.
That brings me to another point I wish to make. As things stand today, I think it appears to most people to be absurd, undemocratic and unfair that one person sitting in his seat can say "Object" without very often even being able to say why he has objected other than that some hon. Friend of his asked him to do so. I myself have been responsible for doing precisely that.
Hon. Members will remember that last Session a Private Bill was introduced by Gloucester Corporation to which I and a number of other people objected on a large number of occasions. Finally, as a result of this objection, the Bill was introduced at 7 o'clock on a date which I do not happen to have in mind, and was then thrown out within ten minutes. Very few people, I believe, wished to throw it out. Nobody really quite understood why it was objected to, and those who had objected in the earlier stages merely wanted Clause 109 of the Bill altered. I believe that almost everyone, including the Home Office, was quite prepared to have that Clause altered.
How could one put down a reasoned Amendment to explain why one wanted Clause 109 of the Gloucester Corporation Bill altered? It was a particularly technical Clause involving the installation of oil burners, and very few people understood what it was all about. I happen to be in that trade, and I was informed by the association that the Clause was being introduced into a number of corporation Bills, that it was a totally unworkable instrument, and

would I kindly look at it and try to explain in the House during the passage of such a Bill why that type of Clause was unworkable and why another type of Clause would be better.
I wanted to have an opportunity to explain this to the House, but I have not had it yet. I had to object on a large number of occasions to the Gloucester Corporation Bill in order to try to get an opportunity to make a speech after its Second Reading had been accepted. But I never got that opportunity because, having objected and got the Bill put down for a Second Reading at 7 o'clock, it never got its Second Reading, and I was never able to make a speech explaining why I wanted Clause 109 changed.
I would not labour the matter but for the fact that I must warn the Chairman of Ways and Means that there are two more corporation Bills on the stocks, both containing this objectionable Clause, to which I shall be obliged to object, or, if I am not able to be present at the time, to ask a number of my hon. Friends to object on my behalf. I am going to do this and give the House notice that I am determined to do so, and also that I am not going to try to explain to my unfortunate hon. Friends exactly what it is all about because it is extremely technical. I shall only say to them, "Please will you sit in your seats on a given Tuesday and say "Object", because if we can get it debated at 7 o'clock I shall make a speech and you need not bother to be here. If we can then get it debated at 7 o'clock I will make the speech myself." I take it that there are probably a great many other people who object in that kind of way or get other people to object for them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: One should leave other people's constituencies alone.

Mr. Usborne: I do not follow that remark. Surely this matter affects almost every Member's constituency. I understand that the Home Office has it in mind, as a result of the discussions which went on about the Gloucester Corporation Bill, to prepare a model Clause for use in all subsequent Corporation Bills, so that in due course this will affect the whole nation. So important is this


matter, in my view, that I have no reason to be ashamed of telling the House that I shall do my best to ensure that this model Clause is a workable and sensible one.
At the moment, I see no other method than to object as I have described. As a result, the Gloucester Corporation Bill came up at 7 o'clock one evening, and, as I have already said, for no reason that anyone could understand—except that the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) was a little aggrieved because he could not fish in the reservoir in Gloucester—the whole thing got thrown out in five or ten minutes, and Gloucester Corporation lost its Bill for a reason that it still cannot understand.
The whole of this procedure is extremely hard to work and difficult to understand. If there were a change, it would seem to me that a sensible method—I am no expert—would be to contrive a procedure under which Private Bills of this order should always automatically get their Second Reading on the nod and then should go to a Committee where a large number of particularly interested Members could manage to make their objections and criticisms.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are only four Members on the Committee?

Mr. Usborne: That is my point. Unless we can change the arrangement of the Committee which deals with these Bills upstairs so that more Members get onto it, those Members who want to speak will have to occupy the time of the House. Under the present arrangement they cannot get their voices heard where they ought to be heard—

Mr. Hayman: Does my hon. Friend realise that a Member on the Committee never makes a speech? He merely listens to evidence. The Committee's Report is never debated on Third Reading on the Floor of the House at all.

Mr. Usborne: That is exactly my point. Under the present arrangement Members of Parliament go upstairs and sit as judges or members of a jury. Then learned counsel who are paid high fees

do the job which Members of Parliament ought to be able to do and address themselves to hon. Members. It seems to me to be topsy-turvy. The whole business does not seem to add up or to make any sense at all. I am merely saying that the procedure from start to finish is so rusty and absurd that it needs to be changed root and branch.
I conclude by saying that I do not think the procedure can be changed little by little or piece by piece. The whole thing must be changed fundamentally, and at the same time when that is done I am convinced that the whole concept of the town poll and the town meeting must be scrubbed and abolished. It is complete lunacy and utterly undemocratic, and the sooner we can get rid of it the better.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Will the hon Gentleman take it from me that the reason why the Gloucester Corporation Bill was objected to had nothing to do with the fishing rights of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), but that there was a substantial objection to several Clauses of some importance?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before we come to dispose of the Motion, which in a moment I shall ask the House to permit me to withdraw, may I ask whether it is not possible for the Leader of the House to say something to us? As I said earlier, this is the only opportunity we have had to debate this matter. The debate has been useful. Although the hour is now late and we all want to go home, in a matter of this kind we obviously ought to carry a majority of the House with us if we are to make a change. So far, at any rate, it is quite obvious that we do not carry the Government Front Bench with us, but I should like to commend to the Leader of the House the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), which certainly meets my views and, possibly, also the views of the majority of the House. I will not ask leave to withdraw the Motion at the moment because I understand that the Leader of the House intends to say something to us before I do.

11.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I did not intervene earlier


because the Chairman of Committees had put many of the points with which I as Leader of the House and the Government are in agreement. I remember having a conversation with the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and I have actually been out to check the record of that conversation. A full record was kept, but I do not recognise in the record or from the witnesses who were present and whom I have now been able to summon, any allusions to my regarding those who approached me as non-U, as the right hon. Gentleman put it. My whole career has been devoted to a classless society, and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman as a brother in that society.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was very irate that I had left the Chamber.

Mr. Wigg: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I withdraw, but I also thought that he was not going to address the House. That is what made me angry.

Mr. Butler: I had some very cherished notes, but I did not wish to prolong the proceedings. That is why I did not address the House earlier. I accept the hon. Member's regret, but I hope that this will mean that he will temper his language on future occasions.
The case put and set out at length in the Select Committee's Report, and particularly in sub-paragraph 7, to which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley referred, is the crux of this debate. There is, of course, some anxiety in some of our minds about the expense and financial burden of promoting private legislation. This burden in the case of a local authority Bill falls upon the ratepayer and, therefore, this is not a matter which one can dismiss without any consideration at all. However, I do not think that considerations of expense and convenience are the only ones that should be present in our minds.
I think it is true to say that from time immemorial, in the tradition and history of Parliament, one dissentient voice in the House has been able to stop certain proceedings. An experiment was made in 1882, when the provision allowing objection to be taken by notice and not by

personal attendance was done away with. As far as Private Business is concerned, one Member has always been required, if he is to be the dissentient voice, to attend and voice his objection in his place. This is an old tradition and one which, I think, we should not lightly let go by. After all, a Private Member is merely saying, when he objects at the time of unopposed Private Business, that he is not prepared to let the Bill have a Second Reading without a debate. This is the sort of right which we should be very cautious of taking away from a Private Member and one which we should preserve to him.
It is, of course, almost impossible—and this is what makes our business so difficult to understand outside this House and makes writing letters to the Press about us so easy—to restrain human nature. We cannot guarantee the motives and ideas which may flow transiently through the mind of any hon. Member when he indulges in this agreeable recreation of objecting to a Private Bill. But there is no doubt that if we were to do away with the privilege we should be taking away one of the principle privileges of a private Member. Therefore, I suggest that the expense and inconvenience should be accepted as a price worth paying for the strict control which individual Members rightly exercise over all the legislation which emanates from this House, be it public or private.
I have only one or two other small points to make. I wish to take the right hon. Gentleman's case as seriously as I can.
It is true that under Standing Order No. 60 (4), for example, the names of six Members must be put down to an Amendment to prevent Scottish Bills being committed to the Scottish Standing Committee, but I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House to the fact that this is not at a time of unopposed Private Business, and it is, therefore, different from the case that we are considering here. The present proposal on the Order Paper, for the acceptance of this provision, places an entirely novel restriction on Private Members, and is one which I could not recommend to the House.
There is one more reason. This is especially so because the same conditions


apply to unopposed public business as to unopposed Private Business, and it would, therefore, be logical for any concession made in regard to the one to be extended to the other. I should certainly be opposed to any proposal to deprive a single private Member of his right to block the passage of Public Bills without debate after the hour of interruption of business, and for similar reasons I consider the proposal before the House unacceptable.
I do not believe that the right to block Private Bills is as often abused as we think. So often when a Member's conduct appears to others to be ill-considered or even irresponsible there are reasons which to him are cogent enough. I should prefer, therefore, that the House should continue to rely upon the good sense of hon. Members in this matter.
That is the conclusion to which we have come. It does not mean that this debate has not been worth while or that the labours of the Committee, which are enshrined in this volume, are wasted. I think it is regrettable that we did not have an earlier debate, but there were a variety of reasons why it had to be postponed. However, we have had a debate tonight, and I shall always be glad to be at the service of the House to carry forward debates on our procedure, and I hope that on other occasions I shall be able to be more constructive than I have been tonight.

Mr. Usborne: The whole debate hitherto has been conducted on the assumption, arising from the Ruling from the Chair, that the discussion of what happens to Private Bills before they reach here is not in order. Will time be given in Parliament when those parts of the Private Bill procedure and the 1933 Act can be discussed in the light of the recommendations of the Committee?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to give an undertaking tonight, but if the hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends would like to discuss it with me, I should be glad to see them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before I ask for the leave of the House to withdraw the

Motion, I should like to make two observations.
First, I am extremely sorry that I made the references which I did to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards us when we went to see him. I regretted them as soon as I had uttered them. I did not entirely mean them. However, at the time we felt a little aggrieved that no opportunity was given us to debate what we thought was something which the House should consider.
Secondly, we shall see whether the present procedure—I admit that at the moment it obviously carries a majority of the House—can exist indefinitely, but I am afraid that for the moment we must leave it there. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not meet us even halfway.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIVILEGES

Sir Thomas Dugdale added to the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. J. Enoch Powell discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts Mr. Simon added.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Simon discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Renton added.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Sir Thomas Dugdale appointed a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund, in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

ESTIMATES

Sir Ian Horobin discharged from the Select Committee; Sir Peter Agnew added.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

REGULAR ARMY RECRUITING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.40 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I am very sorry indeed that I am the cause of the Secretary of State for War having to take an Adjournment debate at this late hour, but at least it gives me the opportunity of wishing the right hon. Gentleman the best of luck in the very difficult task he has to handle. I am sure that from time to time I shall have critical things to say, but we have it in common that we both want to do the best we can for the Army.
In my good fortune in having this Adjournment debate, I do not want to weary the House. It is my purpose to bring to the notice of the House, and perhaps even to those outside the House who are interested, the fact that the November recruiting figures, published in the early days of January, now give us a firm basis upon which to make a projection, a short and long-term projection, which enables one to say that if these recruiting figures continue, certain results will follow.
Of course, I readily agree that one month is a short time in which to form an opinion, but it is equally clear that neither the Government nor the Opposition have all that amount of time for their defence manpower policies to work out. My right hon. and hon. Friends are committed to a four-year plan. The Government are committed to a policy which will have to be confirmed or abandoned before the existing National Service legislation expires at the end of the year.
It therefore becomes a matter of great interest to both sides of the House, to all the young men who may be called up, to industry, to those responsible for technical education and to the universities and the like. One is helped by the fact that one has almost the complete 1957 recruiting figures under all heads. For example, we know that in 1957, making an estimate for the December figures which are yet to come, 21,000 men enlisted on a three-year engagement. Those men will be serving in 1960. If one takes the 251 men recruited on a three-year engagement in November as a basis for a projection, that is 3,000 a year, 27,000 men will be serving on a three-year engagement on

1st January, 1960. On 1st January, 1961, there will be 9,000, because the 21,000 who enlisted in 1957 will have left the Colours and will have been replaced by men enlisting at the rate of 3,000 a year which, for three years, makes 9,000 men.
We have also got as a guide the policy announced by the then Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of the Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Bill, that it was the Government's intention eventually to put a ceiling on the three-year engagement of 1,000 a year in order to get sufficient men for the Brigade of Guards, the Army Catering Corps, the Intelligence Corps, R.E.M.E. and the Corps of Military Police. So we can again carry on with our projections. On 1st January, 1960, there will be 27,000; on 1st January, 1961, there will be 9,000; on 1st January, 1962, there will he 7,000, and on 1st January, there will be 5,000. Finally, with the Government's announced ending of National Service, we run down to their figure of 3,000 on 1st January, 1964.
Now let us turn from the three-year engagement to the new nine-year engagement. In November, 830 men enlisted on the six-year engagement and 190 on the nine-year engagement. We have the exact figures for the rest of 1957, so that we know that in that year there enlisted 3,024 men on the six-year engagement and 1,865 on the nine-year engagement, making an assumption of the figures for the month of December. The figures I have taken are 750 on the six-year engagement and 170 on the nine-year engagement. I think that they are rather high figures.
There is another category about which, if one is making a projection into the future, one must take into account. I refer to that valuable recruiting source—boys. So far the number has remained constant. The figure for 1956—the last year for which we have the complete yearly figure—was 2,608. For my purpose I have taken a figure of 2,600, and I have assumed no casualties, deaths, invalidings, discharges by purchase—no non-effectives at all. For the purpose of doing my sums I have conceded that each ex-boy will give at least eight years' men's service, which is higher than the pre-war figure.
Taking those figures together, one can make a projection that by 1st January,


1963, 5,000 men will be serving the three-year engagement; 52,884 the six-year engagement; 13,265 the nine-year engagement, and 20,880 ex-boys. Although I always work on the basis of male Regulars, I am allowing a figure of 18,000 for officers.
The answer, as on 1st January, 1963, is a total of 109,949, as compared with the Government's ceiling of 165,000. But one has to remember that we did not suddenly start the Army from scratch in October or November. There is a considerable number of men serving long-term engagements—ten years and twelve years, and there are even some on the three-year engagement who may continue to serve. One does not know what that figure is. I do not know; I do not believe that the Government know; I do not believe that anybody can know, because in thousands of cases the men have not yet taken the decision either to leave or to stay in the Army. My estimate—again on the high side—is 25,000. If the Secretary of State says that that is low I would not deny that that is possibly so, but that would make a total of 134,000.
Turning to 1st January, 1964, the comparable figures are 3,000 on the three-year engagement; 59,832 on the six-year engagement; 15,545 on the nine-year engagement; 20,800 ex-boys and 18,000 officers, giving a total of 117,177. If I make the allowance of 25,000, that gives a figure, which is on the high side, of 142,000. The same limitations apply in this case. I have made the allowance of 25,000 for those who are serving at present and who will stay in the Army. I admit that that figure is more a guess than an estimate.
May I turn to the long-term projection. If hon. Members are in doubt about these figures I ask them to take a minute to do this simple sum. Let them start in October, 1957, and imagine that two men join the Army every month after that, one on a six-year engagement and one on a nine-year engagement. This is the crux of the man-year calculation which I have had difficulty to persuade many hon. Members on both sides of the House to accept. This is the crux of the matter, whether we are talking in terms of commitments or in any other terms. What we get out of these men in terms of man-years is what matters.
The two men start equal but one is on a six-year engagement and the other is on a nine-year engagement. After six years the Army will be 144 strong. After nine years it will have risen to 180. But there is a further factor to take into account. In order to keep the bias against myself, I am making no allowance for non-effectives at all—no deaths, no discharges, no invaliding out, no desertions. I am allowing an average of eight years' man's service for every man, which, again, is higher than the pre-war figure. The Army which we shall eventually get on that basis is 192. That figure will be attained only after 22 years, because it takes into account that some men enlisting for six and nine years will extend their service to 20 years and in some cases longer.
Let us do a projection based upon the November recruiting figures, taking every available factor into account and leaving no margin at all for non-effectives. The assumption which I make is that in the case of three-year engagements the Army will gain at least ten per cent. by extension of service. As I have said, in the case of the man on six years and nine years, we shall get an average of eight years out of each man. From boys we shall get eight years' man's service each. The figures are then 3,300 men on three-year engagements; 96,000 on six-year and nine-year engagements; 20,800 ex-boys and 18,000 officers. The total figure is 138,100.
We thus reach an extraordinary situation. I ask right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to see the logic of the position in which they have landed themselves by playing politics with this problem. Suppose that as a result of the Government's pay increases and the improvement of conditions, or suppose that as a result of my right hon. Friend's four-year plan, we succeed in doubling the rate of recruitment at once. Suppose that the thousand a month recruiting now on six and nine-year engagements becomes 2,000. I warn the Government that that is the figure which they will have to attain; they will have to double the recruiting figure if they are to close the gap on the basis of this long-term projection. That is what they must do to reach the figure of 165,000.
If they doubled the rate of recruiting they would reach the figure of 165,000,


but four years later they would have about 40,000 or 50,000 too many. One now sees the rhythm of the Government's proposals. In July they introduced a compensation White Paper in which they announced proposals costing £50 million by which men would leave the Army.
In January they have a Treasury crisis. The Chancellor and his colleagues resigned because they do not want to give any more money to the Forces, but the Defence Minister must save the situation, and the Government will now spend £35 million to £40 million to get more recruits. If the policy succeeds and the Defence Minister has his way, and we double recruiting, then, in another four or five years another Chancellor of the Exchequer will resign, because another Defence Minister will come to the House and offer £50 million to the 40,000 or 50,000 surplus men to leave the Army.
That is the wonderful position into which we have got ourselves. I am not suggesting for a moment that tonight the Secretary of State can refute my figures. I know that he cannot. I know the answer that I would give myself were I in his position: the argument that we have not all the data, that it has not yet finished, and that this is only one month. But in a few months' time we shall have the December figures, and if I am lucky enough to get the Adjournment debate so soon I will do my sums again, because the country should know the truth at the earliest possible moment. The one thing we cannot afford to do is to go on doling out £50 million every half year to induce men to leave the Army and, in the other half, to offer £50 million to get them into the Army. Someone must make up his mind.
I am quite used to being told that my information is incomplete. On 29th January, 1953, I said that the three-year engagement was not the answer, and I was howled down for saying so. I went on saying it, and later, when we were given the figures of re-engagement, I again expressed my doubts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and that by some magic he will get the recruits he wants, but I tell him quite honestly, even though I may rouse the ire of the Minister of Defence, that I do not think that it is possible. I say that because the problem is not primarily one

of recruitment. What has gone wrong as a result of the introduction of the three-year engagement, and as a result of its absurd retention long after its usefulness had ended, is that the structure of the Army has been so distorted that it, will take several years to put it right. My guess is 12 or 13 years.
On the whole, the long-term recruitment figures for November are good, and better than the Government had a right to expect. If the Government were wise, they would abandon the absurd proposals they have put forward in the last White Paper and adopt a slow-but-sure policy—better accommodation, better married' quarters; better pay, if they think it necessary—better conditions all round. As was said in another place earlier, let the Army be a good employer. A good employer does not give good pay and good conditions only when it suits him, but does it as an act of justice to those serving him. If the Secretary of State for War will do that, he will lay the foundations of what will, one day, be a successful recruiting policy.

11.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the kind words he addressed to me. One of the agreeable features of this particular post is that one has frequent opportunities of debating these matters with him.
I would first of all like to deal with his point that the Government are paying a large sum of money one year to encourage people to leave the Army and then in the next year paying a large sum of money in order to try to attract more people into it. He knows, of course, that the two payments are not in any way comparable. If one is running down the Army one can run down the number of other ranks very quickly, but one cannot do that with the corps of officers. The compensation payments are, of course for officers and senior N.C.O.s, whereas the other payment to which the hon. Member referred would be made try) attract a large number of recruits.
About two things we would all agree. First, we would agree as to the great knowledge the hon. Gentleman has of defence in general, and particularly of the Army, and, secondly, we would agree as to the assiduity with which he gains


his facts, checking them and rechecking them before he airs them in public. As a result, those who are responsible for matters of defence on this side of the House do not often find themselves differing from the hon. Gentleman over facts, but where we frequently have to differ from him is over the conclusions which he draws from those facts. That is the position in which I find myself this evening. I am grateful to him for having given me a sight of the figures which he has quoted, which enables me to give him a considered reply.
There are two main reasons why I differ from his conclusions. To one of them he referred himself. It is that his conclusions are not based on adequate statistical information. The three-year engagement only came to an end at the end of September; in fact, there was a hang-over into October. And, of course, the three-year engagement does distort the picture of the six and nine-year engagement; so that November was the first month when we could get some idea of the numbers coming in on six and nine year Regular engagements.
November, on the other hand, is the only month on which the hon. Gentleman drew up his figures. I cannot blame him for that, because they were the only figures available to hip. But what I am saying is that the conclusion which he tried to draw was, what was going to be the size of the Army in 1963; and he based that upon one month's recruiting in 1957. If he were running a cricket team, he would not drop a batsman who did not score a century the first time; and he certainly would not do so if it was on a sticky wicket. November is a sticky wicket, notoriously so. November and December are bad months for recruiting. Just before Christmas, if a young man is contemplating going into the Army he is inclined to remain at home over Christmas and join the Army soon afterwards, in January or February. The variations in recruiting figures for different seasons of the year are really very considerable. Here again, what the hon. Gentleman has done is to take the figures for one month only in the year and project those forward. If one does that, surely one falls into the oldest statistical trap of all, which is to multiply error by starting from a false premise.

If one's premise is wrong, the further one has to take it and the more one multiplies it, the greater becomes the error. So my first reason for disagreeing with his conclusions—although I fully see his point, that they are the only figures open to him—is that he has tried to draw conclusions too hastily and base them on insufficient information.
Secondly, even if we were to accept that the hon. Member's conclusions were soundly based, all that they would show us would be the numbers of men who would be likely to join the Army as Regular soldiers under existing conditions. But conditions will change; they must change. He referred to the good employer policy. A good employer must be flexible in both thought and action, and he must change with the times. Conditions will be changing for the better. Financial improvements are to be announced shortly. A large building programme has been got under way, which will make living conditions very much better.
I know that the hon. Member would not under-estimate the effect of the added incentive to recruitment, for a man who wishes to go into the Army as a vocation, of spending a goodly part of his life in the Armed Forces as a volunteer. How much more agreeable is it for a true volunteer to spend his time with other volunteers. While not in any way denigrating the National Service man—we all pay tribute to the good they have done in the past years—the fact remains that in almost every barrack room every week there is one National Service man going. I think the barrack room terminology is "release happy"—he sticks up a calender behind his bed, ticks off the days, and gets more and more excited as the day gets nearer. That has an effect on morale and on those who are contemplating signing on; and if one wants to be a regular career soldier, it is more agreeable to be so in an all-Regular Army than in a mixed Regular and National Service Army.
I shall not try to forecast tonight what effect these considerations will have on the level of recruiting, but I am sure they will have a considerable effect and should not be ignored. But of necessity the hon. Gentleman, only wanting to start from definite, established figures, has ignored them; and they will, I am sure, make a considerable difference.
To sum up, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if the figures for November, 1957, are not improved upon we shall not get an Army of the strength we require. But I do not believe the shortfall will be as serious as he has suggested. I do not agree either that there is enough statistical evidence yet available from which to draw conclusions for the years ahead, or, more important, that the present recruiting figures for November will not be improved. I do not regard

the task we have set ourselves as being impossible of attainment; but neither am I complacent about it. We are going fiat out to close the gap. I know his concern for the Army is such that he will be as pleased as any of us, if in the event the figures confound his pessimism.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.